* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > The proposed pg_replication role introduces abstraction that could, as you > > hope, spare a DBA from studying sets of functions to grant together. The > > pg_rotate_logfile role, however, does not shield the DBA from complexity. > > Being narrowly tied to a specific function, it's just a suboptimal spelling > > of > > GRANT. The gap in GRANT has distorted the design for these predefined > > roles. > > I do not anticipate a sound design discussion about specific predefined > > roles > > so long as the state of GRANT clouds the matter. > > As the patch stands, the system roles that are just close to synonyms > of GRANT/REVOKE are the following: > - pg_file_settings, which works just on the system view > pg_file_settings and the function pg_show_all_file_settings(). > - pg_rotate_logfile as mentioned already.
The above are fine, I believe. > - pg_signal_backend, which is just checked once in pg_signal_backend This is a bit more complicated. pg_signal_backend() isn't directly exposed, pg_cancel_backend() and pg_termiante_backend() are. I'm not saying that doesn't mean we should, necessairly, keep the pg_signal_backend role, just that it's more than just a single function. Further, pg_terminate_backend and pg_cancel_backend are callable by anyone today. We'd have to invent new functions or change user-visible behavior in an unfortunate way- we don't want *anyone* to be able to call those functions on *anyone* unless they've been specifically granted that access. Today, you can cancel and/or terminate your own backends and superusers can cancel and/or termiante anyone's. The point of pg_signal_backend was to allow non-superusers to cancel and/or terminate any non-superuser-started backends. With the default role approach, we can provide exactly the intended semantics and not break backwards compatibility for those functions. > Based on those concerns, it looks clear that they should be shaved off > from the patch. I'd like to hear back regarding the summary email that I sent to Noah and the follow-up I sent to Robert, as they have time to reply, of course. It's certainly easy enough to remove those default roles if that's the consensus though. > >> > To summarize, I think the right next step is to resume designing pg_dump > >> > support for system object ACLs. I looked over your other two patches > >> > and will > >> > unshelve those reviews when their time comes. > >> > >> To be clear, I don't believe the two patches are particularly involved > >> with each other and don't feel that one needs to wait for the other. > > > > Patch 2/3 could stand without patch 3/3, but not vice-versa. It's patch 2/3 > > that makes pg_dumpall skip ^pg_ roles, and that must be in place no later > > than > > the first patch that adds a predefined ^pg_ role. > > I am a bit confused by this statement, and I disagree with Stephen's > point as well. It seems to me that 2/3 exists *because* 3/3 is here. > Why would we want to restrict the role names that can be used if we > are not going to introduce some system roles that are created at > bootstrap? My comment was, evidently, not anywhere near clear enough. The two patches I was referring to were the pg_dump-support-for-catalog-ACLs and the default-roles patches. Apologies for the confusion there. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature