From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A fixed user id for the postgres user? |
Date: | 2001-08-22 16:03:33 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0108221756260.679-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> What I'm thinking is that if we hard-wired usesysid = 1 for the
> superuser, it'd be possible to arrange for standalone backends to fire
> up with that sysid and superuserness assumed, and not consult pg_shadow
> at all. Then you'd have a platform in which you could do CREATE USER.
I had always figured that you could use bki to recover from these things,
but a quick attempt shows that you can't.
You proposal makes sense from a Unix admin point of view (booting into
single user mode without password). Since we have a check against root
access and against too liberal PGDATA permissions, I think this would be
safe. Possibly we need to guard against setgid problems as well.
> Next mind-bending problem: recover from DROP TABLE pg_class ;-)
Definitely BKI land. But that usecatupd field does make some sense,
apparently.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-22 16:07:36 | Re: GiST patches for 7.2 (please apply) |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-08-22 15:55:58 | Re: Signals blocked during auth |