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
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 |