Re: Can not ALTER TEXT SEARCH DICTIONARY intdict which is default in dict_int

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Li EF Zhang <bjzhangl(at)cn(dot)ibm(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Can not ALTER TEXT SEARCH DICTIONARY intdict which is default in dict_int
Date: 2021-08-25 04:19:55
Message-ID: 513908.1629865195@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 8:51 PM Li EF Zhang <bjzhangl(at)cn(dot)ibm(dot)com> wrote:
>> Thanks for your answer. My doubt is that since an ordinary user creates
>> the extension, shouldn't be this user the owner of the objects created
>> within the extension?

> While that is a possible implementation choice, that isn't what was chosen.

Let's be clear here: that is not some random implementor's decision.
That is *necessary*, else the feature is completely insecure.

The example given at the top of the thread isn't especially
security-relevant, but there are a lot of other possible ALTER commands
that are. For example, an ordinary user granted ownership of a
"C"-language function can easily modify it in a way that allows her to
gain full control of the installation. So we cannot implement trusted
extensions by allowing the user requesting the install to own the
individual objects within the extension.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2021-08-25 05:29:36 Re: Can not ALTER TEXT SEARCH DICTIONARY intdict which is default in dict_int
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2021-08-25 04:01:07 Re: Can not ALTER TEXT SEARCH DICTIONARY intdict which is default in dict_int