From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Joseph Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: access control jails (and introduction as aspiring GSoC student) |
Date: | 2010-03-24 00:27:31 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f071003231727k1642667dr75af056531b63da4@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> I wonder if this is simpler now that we got rid of the flat files stuff.
>> We could validate the user once we've connected to a database and thus
>> able to poke at the local user catalog, not just the global one. I
>> think that was a serious roadblock.
>
> I think it'd be a mistake to invent a separate catalog for local users;
> what had been nice clean foreign key relationships (eg, relowner ->
> pg_auth.oid) would suddenly become a swamp.
>
> My first thought about a catalog representation would be to add a column
> to pg_auth which is a DB OID for local users or zero for global users.
> However, you'd probably want to prevent local users and global users
> from having the same names, and it's not very clear how to do that
> with this representation (though that'd be even worse with separate
> catalogs). I guess we could fall back on a creation-time check (ick).
Could we use a suitably defined exclusion constraint?
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-24 00:30:09 | Re: Proposal: access control jails (and introduction as aspiring GSoC student) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-24 00:16:07 | Re: Proposal: access control jails (and introduction as aspiring GSoC student) |