From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com, steve(at)supabase(dot)io, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Allow placeholders in ALTER ROLE w/o superuser |
Date: | 2022-11-19 01:02:04 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdukNbP_imp8FNjOryB7H4a7REW1e-48JxQeoiCqBJVuzg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 12:41 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> ... BTW, re-reading the commit message for a0ffa885e:
>
> One caveat is that PGC_USERSET GUCs are unaffected by the SET privilege
> --- one could wish that those were handled by a revocable grant to
> PUBLIC, but they are not, because we couldn't make it robust enough
> for GUCs defined by extensions.
>
> it suddenly struck me to wonder if the later 13d838815 changed the
> situation enough to allow revisiting that problem, and/or if storing
> the source role's OID in pg_db_role_setting would help.
>
> I don't immediately recall all the problems that led us to leave USERSET
> GUCs out of the feature, so maybe this is nuts; but maybe it isn't.
> It'd be worth considering if we're trying to improve matters here.
I think if we implement the user-visible USERSET flag for ALTER ROLE,
then we might just check permissions for such parameters from the
target role.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-19 01:04:40 | Re: test/modules/test_oat_hooks vs. debug_discard_caches=1 |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2022-11-19 00:56:35 | Re: Allow placeholders in ALTER ROLE w/o superuser |