| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: role self-revocation |
| Date: | 2022-03-07 18:33:04 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoavJCXmQyH+XXZYveMOaej9MZZspztRQ=HnPOzV9QRZ8A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 1:28 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Ugh, I think you are right. It's been a long time of course, but it sure
> looks like that was copied-and-pasted without recognizing that it was
> wrong in this function because of the need to check the admin_option flag.
> And then in the later security discussion we didn't realize that the
> problematic behavior was a flat-out thinko, so we narrowed it as much as
> we could instead of just taking it out.
>
> Does anything interesting break if you do just take it out?
That is an excellent question, but I haven't had time yet to
investigate the matter.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2022-03-07 18:45:12 | Re: role self-revocation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-07 18:28:14 | Re: role self-revocation |