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
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 |