From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_maintain and USAGE privilege on schema |
Date: | 2024-07-10 19:29:00 |
Message-ID: | 3f4c6e5ce54d8871ab915dc4f5c270a940f628d6.camel@j-davis.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2024-07-10 at 17:13 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> ISTM that both
> pg_read_all_data and pg_write_all_data roles are defined similarly,
> with USAGE rights on all schemas.
I'm not so sure that was a great idea to begin with. If you create a
private schema with a SECURITY DEFINER function in it, it's a bit odd
to allow someone with pg_read_all_data to execute it. Granted, that's
documented behavior, but I'm not sure the privileges should be bundled
in that fashion.
> > It might be reasonable to give implicit USAGE privileges on all
> > schemas
> > during maintenance commands to pg_maintain roles.
That's an even more specific exception: having USAGE only in the
context of a maintenance command. I think that's a new concept, right?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2024-07-10 19:31:02 | Re: Simplifying width_bucket_numeric() |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-07-10 18:59:15 | Re: Missed opportunity for bsearch() in TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId()? |