On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 09:31:47PM +0200, José Luis Tallón wrote: > On 05/17/2015 07:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >=?windows-1252?Q?Jos=E9_Luis_Tall=F3n?= <jltal...@adv-solutions.net> writes: > >>On the other hand, ISTM that what we all intend to achieve is some > >>Postgres equivalent of the SUID bit... so why not just do something > >>equivalent? > >>------- > >> LOGIN -- as user with the appropriate role membership / privilege? > >> ... > >> SET ROLE / SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION WITH COOKIE / IMPERSONATE > >> ... do whatever ... -- unprivileged user can NOT do the > >>"impersonate" thing > >> DISCARD ALL -- implicitly restore previous authz > >>------- > >Oh? What stops the unprivileged user from doing DISCARD ALL? > > Indeed. The pooler would need to block this. > Or we would need to invent another (this time, privileged) verb in > order to restore authz.
What if you put the SQL in a function then call the function? I don't see how the pooler could block this. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
