> On Mar 24, 2023, at 7:00 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> More generally, Stephen Frost has elsewhere argued that we should want
> the subscription owner to be a very low-privilege user, so that if
> their privileges get stolen, it's no big deal. I disagree with that. I
> think it's always a problem if one user can get unauthorized access to
> another user's account, regardless of exactly what those accounts can
> do. I think our goal should be to make it safe for the subscription
> owner to be a very high-privilege user, because you're going to need
> to be a very high-privilege user to set up replication. And if you do
> have that level of privilege, it's more convenient and simpler if you
> can just own the subscription yourself, rather than having to make a
> dummy account to own it. To put that another way, I think that what
> people are going to want to do in a lot of cases is have the superuser
> own the subscription, so I think we need to make that case safe,
> whatever it takes.
I also think the subscription owner should be a low-privileged user, owing to
the risk of the publisher injecting malicious content into the publication. I
think you are focused on all the bad actors on the subscription-side database
and what they can do to each other. That's also valid, but I get the
impression that you're losing sight of the risk posed by malicious publishers.
Or maybe you aren't, and can explain?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
