From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
Date: | 2023-02-28 02:38:35 |
Message-ID: | Y/1pK3dAb5UAoDxd@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Jeff Davis (pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com) wrote:
> Not all steps would be breaking changes, and a lot of those steps are
> things we should do anyway. We could make it easier to write safe
> SECURITY DEFINER functions, provide more tools for users to opt-out of
> executing SECURITY INVOKER code, provide a way for superusers to safely
> drop privileges, document the problems with security invoker and what
> to do about them, etc.
Agreed.
> But we also shouldn't exaggerate it -- for instance, others have
> proposed that we run code as the table owner for logical subscriptions,
> and that's going to break things in the same way. Arguably, if we are
> going to break something, it's better to break it consistently rather
> than one subsystem at a time.
I tend to agree with this.
> Back to the $SUBJECT, if we allow non-superusers to run subscriptions,
> and the subscription runs the code as the table owner, that might also
> lead to some weird behavior for triggers that rely on SECURITY INVOKER
> semantics.
Indeed.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-02-28 02:44:46 | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2023-02-28 02:31:47 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |