| From: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460) |
| Date: | 2009-12-11 04:57:27 |
| Message-ID: | 4B21D137.8080402@ak.jp.nec.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> OK, I'll add the following description in the documentation of pg_largeobject.
>
>> <structname>pg_largeobject</structname> should not be readable by the
>> public, since the catalog contains data in large objects of all users.
>
> This is going to be a problem, because it will break applications that
> expect to be able to read pg_largeobject. Like, say, pg_dump.
Is it a right behavior, even if we have permission checks on large objects?
If so, we can inject a hardwired rule to prevent to select pg_largeobject
when lo_compat_privileges is turned off, instead of REVOKE ALL FROM PUBLIC.
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2009-12-11 05:10:29 | Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-11 04:55:49 | Re: [PATCH] dtrace probes for memory manager |