| From: | Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com" <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net" <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers |
| Date: | 2021-05-13 19:18:32 |
| Message-ID: | 2c65ab8db3aa3bfc8d6ef919175475be4c3bd6aa.camel@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2021-05-13 at 11:42 -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
> The distinction that Theme+Security would make is that capabilities
> can be categorized by the area of the system:
> -- planner
> -- replication
> -- logging
> ...
> but also by the security implications of what is being done:
> -- host
> -- schema
> -- network
Since the "security" buckets are being used for both proposals -- how
you would deal with overlap between them? When a GUC gives you enough
host access to bleed into the schema and network domains, does it get
all three attributes assigned to it, and thus require membership in all
three roles?
(Thanks, by the way, for this thread -- I think a "capability system"
for superuser access is a great idea.)
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-05-13 19:27:15 | Re: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-05-13 19:13:23 | Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements |