From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: should we allow users with a predefined role to access pg_backend_memory_contexts view and pg_log_backend_memory_contexts function? |
Date: | 2021-10-14 19:02:19 |
Message-ID: | ce0ce10e2c5429d66d3ee1f8ad14fd3667ee9c54.camel@j-davis.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2021-10-14 at 14:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I am not really sure that we can get away with changing this, since
> it
> is long-established behavior. At least, if we do, we are going to
> have
> to warn people to watch out for backward-compatibility issues, some
> of
> which may not be things breaking functionally but rather having a
> different security profile. But, in a green field, I don't know why
> it's sane to suppose that if you query a view, the things in the view
> behave partly as if the user querying the view were running them, and
> partly as if the user owning the view were one of them. It seems much
> more logical for it to be one or the other.
How do you feel about at least allowing the functions to execute (and
if it's SECURITY INVOKER, possibly encountering a permissions failure
during execution)?
There are of course security implications with any change like that,
but it seems like a fairly minor one unless I'm missing something. Why
would an admin give someone the privileges to read a view if it will
always fail due to lack of execute privilege?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2021-10-14 19:14:16 | Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson |
Previous Message | Gilles Darold | 2021-10-14 19:00:17 | Re: [PATCH] Proposal for HIDDEN/INVISIBLE column |