From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PG <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Let file_fdw access COPY FROM PROGRAM |
Date: | 2016-09-07 06:21:56 |
Message-ID: | 7ee29dfb-96c3-106c-6d61-8f618229502f@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016/09/07 12:29, Corey Huinker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> OK.
> Well...maybe not, depending on what Craig and other can do to educate me
> about the TAP tests.
Sure.
>>> Changing table-level options requires superuser privileges, for security
>>> reasons: only a superuser should be able to determine which file is read,
>>> or which program is run. In principle non-superusers could be allowed to
>>> change the other options, but that's not supported at present.
>>
>> Hmm, just a little modification would make it better for me:
>>
>> ... for security reasons. For example, only superuser should be able to
>> determine which file read or which program is run.
>>
>> Although that could be just me.
>
> In this case "determine" is unclear whether a non-superuser can set the
> program to be run, or is capable of knowing which program is set to be run
> by the fdw.
Hmm, it is indeed unclear.
How about:
... for security reasons. For example, only superuser should be able to
*change* which file is read or which program is run.
I just realized this is not just about a C comment. There is a line in
documentation as well which needs an update. Any conclusion here should
be applied there.
> We may want some more opinions on what is the most clear.
Certainly.
>> But as you said above, this could be deferred to the committer.
>>
>
> Yeah, and that made for zero storage savings: a char pointer which is never
> assigned a string takes up as much space as a 4-byte-aligned boolean. And
> the result is that "file" really means program, which I found slightly
> awkward.
My only intent to push for that approach is to have consistency with other
code implementing a similar feature although it may not be that important.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Borodin | 2016-09-07 06:42:41 | Re: GiST penalty functions [PoC] |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-09-07 06:17:56 | Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |