From: | Joseph S <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [ANNOUNCE] == PostgreSQL Weekly News - August 26 2007 == |
Date: | 2007-08-27 17:34:43 |
Message-ID: | fav1vj$2ui3$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-announce pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joseph S <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> writes:
>>> Tom Lane committed:
>>> - Restrict pg_relation_size to relation owner, pg_database_size to DB
>>> owner, and pg_tablespace_size to superusers. Perhaps we could
>>> weaken the first case to just require SELECT privilege, but that
>>> doesn't work for the other cases, so use ownership as the common
>>> concept.
>>>
>> Is there going to be a way to turn this off easily?
>
> No. If you want to make an argument for weaker restrictions than these,
> argue away, but security restrictions that can be "easily turned off"
> are no security at all.
I don't see how letting the size of a database or relation is a big
security risk. I do see how forcing me to login as the superuser to see
my db stats creates more of a security risk.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dmitry Narizhnykh | 2007-08-27 20:22:07 | ANN: DBForms from MS Access to PHP + PostgreSQL v.1.0 released |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-08-27 16:04:53 | Re: [ANNOUNCE] == PostgreSQL Weekly News - August 26 2007 == |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-08-27 17:52:44 | Re: Tables dissapearing |
Previous Message | Kevin Neufeld | 2007-08-27 17:32:24 | PickSplit method of 2 columns ... error |