From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh <josh(at)schemaverse(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SET variable - Permission issues |
Date: | 2011-10-10 21:23:25 |
Message-ID: | 4E93624D.1090402@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/10/2011 01:52 PM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Any developer who can't think of six ways to DOS the server without
>> changing those settings should be fired on the spot for incompetence.
Perhaps, but I think our long term goal at least should be to make it
possible to prevent that -- not necessarily the default configuration,
but it should be at least *possible* for a sufficiently careful DBA to
harden their postgres instance.
I have multiple clients that either do run or would like to run postgres
multi-tenant, and at the moment that is somewhere between risky and
unacceptable.
> Would it be possible to make the SUSET/USERSET property of a GUC
> modifiable? So a DBA can do
>
> ALTER USER novice SET CONTEXT OF work_mem TO 'superuser';
>
> Or, maybe
>
> ALTER USER novice SET MAX_VAL OF work_mem TO '1 MB';
>
> and extend it to say
>
> ALTER USER novice SET MIN_VAL OF statement_timeout TO '1';
> -- So that the user cannot turn off the timeout
>
> ALTER DATABASE super_reliable SET ENUM_VALS OF synchronous_commit TO 'on';
> -- So that the user cannot change the synchronicity of transactions
> against this database.
I like this better than GRANT/REVOKE on SET.
Joe
--
Joe Conway
credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us
Linux, PostgreSQL, and general Open Source
Training, Service, Consulting, & 24x7 Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-10-10 21:32:27 | Re: SET variable - Permission issues |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-10-10 21:10:18 | Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation |