| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
| Date: | 2021-12-06 10:19:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Jh2xSMvZWzqNxjduyRoExHAL4c7ZVeESYdPHJxcqo8Bw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 10:37 PM Mark Dilger
<mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 2021, at 1:29 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > If we want to maintain the property that subscriptions can only be
> > owned by superuser for your first version then isn't a simple check
> > like ((!superuser()) for each of the operations is sufficient?
>
> As things stand today, nothing prevents a superuser subscription owner from having superuser revoked. The patch does nothing to change this.
>
I understand that but won't that get verified when we look up the
information in pg_authid as part of superuser() check?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2021-12-06 10:32:26 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-12-06 10:02:03 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |