From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions |
Date: | 2016-02-17 22:17:47 |
Message-ID: | 56C4F18B.2080207@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/17/2016 02:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> On 2/17/16 12:15 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>>> Ok, removed the documentation on the function pg_config() and pushed.
>
>> I still have my serious doubts about this, especially not even requiring
>> superuser access for this information. Could someone explain why we
>> need this?
>
> I thought we'd agreed on requiring superuser access for this function.
> I concur that letting just anyone see the config data is inappropriate.
It does not let anyone see config data out of the box:
+ CREATE VIEW pg_config AS
+ SELECT * FROM pg_config();
+
+ REVOKE ALL on pg_config FROM PUBLIC;
+ REVOKE EXECUTE ON FUNCTION pg_config() FROM PUBLIC;
+
But it does not have an explicit superuser check. I can add that if
that's the consensus.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh berkus | 2016-02-17 22:20:25 | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-02-17 22:17:29 | Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes |