Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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.
I think the idea of having SET SESSION AUTH pass a cookie, and only let RESET SESSION AUTH work when the same cookie is supplied, is pretty reasonable. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
