From: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [BUG] autovacuum may skip tables when session_authorization/role is set on database |
Date: | 2023-12-13 22:53:47 |
Message-ID: | E9ADF0C6-2F7A-4564-B2F1-CB5CF61A1F4B@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> What is the actual
> use case for such a setting?
I don't have exact details on the use-case, bit this is not a common
use-case.
> Doesn't it risk security problems?
I cannot see how setting it on the database being more problematic than
setting it on a session level.
> I'm rather unimpressed by this proposal, first because there are
> probably ten other ways to break autovac with ill-considered settings,
There exists code in autovac that safeguard for such settings. For example,
statement_timeout, lock_timeout are disabled. There are a dozen or
more other settings that are overridden for autovac.
I see this being just another one to ensure that autovacuum always runs
as superuser.
> and second because if we do want to consider this a supported case,
> what about other background processes? They'd likely have issues
> as well.
I have not considered other background processes, but autovac is the only
one that I can think of which checks for relation permissions.
Regards,
Sami
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2023-12-14 00:22:11 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-12-13 22:22:42 | Obscure lwlock assertion failure if write fails in initdb |