| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Orphaned users in PG16 and above can only be managed by Superusers |
| Date: | 2025-03-05 20:40:18 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaR8zD_w24m9ETSSkEvFyWBSaKi2+AWCxa8w6Z03pop4g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 3:13 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> * The patch alleges to only block DROP ROLE commands when there exists
> _both_ admins of the target role and roles for which the target role is
> an admin. However, it's not clear to me why both need to be true. I
> might be able to glean the reason if I read this thread carefully or
> spend more time thinking about it, but IMHO that patch itself should make
> it obvious. I'd suggest expanding the comment atop
> check_drop_role_dependency().
The error message needs work, too. Nobody is ever going to guess what
the rule is from that error message.
> * Does this introduce any race conditions? For example, is it possible for
> the new check to pass and then for a dependency to be added before the
> drop completes?
This is a serious concern for me as well.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2025-03-05 20:40:52 | Re: optimize file transfer in pg_upgrade |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-03-05 20:33:42 | Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0 |