Re: Big problem

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, sergiomb(at)netcabo(dot)pt
Subject: Re: Big problem
Date: 2004-05-24 18:23:09
Message-ID: 40B23D8D.2050501@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>>Hmmm - I agree it's difficult, but somehow I think it's something we
>>should do. Just imagine if some major user of postgres did it - they'd
>>be screaming blue murder...
>
> Shrug. Superusers can *always* shoot themselves in the foot in Postgres.
> Try "delete from pg_proc", for instance. This sounds right up there
> with the notion of preventing a Unix superuser from doing "rm -rf /".

I have to agree.

FWIW, I've seen a unix superuser do a recursive chmod 777 on /, and I've
seen a Windows server admin recursively deny EVERYTHING from EVERYBODY
starting at c:\. In both cases, we found that's why we keep regular
backups ;-)

Joe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2004-05-24 18:23:31 Re: Optimizer bug??
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2004-05-24 18:22:41 Re: Big problem