From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fixing CREATEROLE |
Date: | 2022-11-22 16:40:17 |
Message-ID: | 911a5c23-bd93-4848-3c26-245b3b667151@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/21/22 15:39, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm curious to hear what other people think of these proposals, but
> let me first say what I think about them. First, I think it's clear
> that we need to do something, because things right now are pretty
> badly broken and in a way that affects security. Although these
> patches are not back-patchable, they at least promise to improve
> things as older versions go out of use.
+1
> Second, it's possible that we should look for back-patchable fixes
> here, but I can't really see that we're going to come up with
> anything much better than just telling people not to use this feature
> against older releases, because back-patching catalog changes or
> dramatic behavior changes seems like a non-starter. In other words, I
> think this is going to be a master-only fix.
Yep, seems highly likely
> Third, someone could well have a better or just different idea how to
> fix the problems in this area than what I'm proposing here. This is
> the best that I've been able to come up with so far, but that's not
> to say it's free of problems or that no improvements are possible.
On quick inspection I like what you have proposed and no significantly
"better" ideas jump to mind. I will try to think on it though.
> Finally, I think that whatever we do about the code, the documentation
> needs quite a bit of work, because the code is doing a lot of stuff
> that is security-critical and entirely non-obvious from the
> documentation. I have not in this version of these patches included
> any documentation changes and the regression test changes that I have
> included are quite minimal. That all needs to be fixed up before there
> could be any thought of moving forward with these patches. However, I
> thought it best to get rough patches and an outline of the proposed
> direction on the table first, before doing a lot of work refining
> things.
I have looked at, and even done some doc improvements in this area in
the past, and concluded that it is simply hard to describe it in a
clear, straightforward way.
There are multiple competing concepts (privs on objects, attributes of
roles, membership, when things are inherited versus not, settings bound
to roles, etc). I don't know what to do about it, but yeah, fixing the
documentation would be a noble goal.
--
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-11-22 16:43:25 | Re: Allow single table VACUUM in transaction block |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2022-11-22 16:40:01 | Re: Slow standby snapshot |