Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT.
Date: 2021-10-25 17:51:56
Message-ID: 4053258.1635184316@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Independent of other things, getting to the point where everything can
> be done in the database without the need for superuser is absolutely a
> good goal to be striving for, not something to be avoiding.
> I don't think that makes superuser become 'dummy', but perhaps the
> only explicit superuser check we end up needing is "superuser is a
> member of all roles". That would be a very cool end state.

I'm not entirely following how that's going to work. It implies that
there is some allegedly-not-superuser role that has the ability to
become superuser -- either within SQL or by breaking out to the OS --
because certainly a superuser can do those things.

I don't think we're serving any good purpose by giving people the
impression that roles with such permissions are somehow not
superuser-equivalent. Certainly, the providers who don't want to
give users superuser are just going to need a longer list of roles
they won't give access to (and they probably won't be pleased about
having to vet every predefined role carefully).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2021-10-25 17:54:43 Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT.
Previous Message Andres Freund 2021-10-25 17:50:28 Re: Experimenting with hash tables inside pg_dump