From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [BUG] SECURITY DEFINER on call handler makes daemon crash |
Date: | 2010-03-20 02:17:41 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f071003191917s40150e1rb201ae1716b37b8d@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> writes:
>>>> When we assign "SECURITY DEFINER" attribute on plpgsql_call_handler(),
>>>> it makes server process crashed.
>>>
>>> So don't do that. Whatever possessed you to think that's a sensible
>>> idea anyway?
>
>> It might not be sensible, but the whole server going down as a result
>> doesn't seem very sensible either.
>
> [ shrug... ] If you would like to start enumerating the ways in which
> you can crash the server with erroneous pg_proc entries for C functions,
> go for it. It'll keep you out of trouble for a very long time.
It's obviously not possible to make this bulletproof in general, but
that doesn't mean we should crash just for fun.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-03-20 02:29:19 | Re: [BUG] SECURITY DEFINER on call handler makes daemon crash |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-20 00:11:13 | Re: [BUG] SECURITY DEFINER on call handler makes daemon crash |