Re: plpgsql by default - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: plpgsql by default
Date
Msg-id 1144794633.8825.43.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: plpgsql by default  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: plpgsql by default  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Re: plpgsql by default  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Re: plpgsql by default  ("Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 17:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> No, I'm saying that having access to a PL renders certain classes of
> attacks significantly more efficient.  A determined attacker with
> unlimited time may not care, but in the real world, security is
> relative.

That's a fair point.

Perhaps a compromise would be to enable pl/pgsql by default, but not
grant the USAGE privilege on it. This would allow superusers to define
pl/pgsql functions without taking any additional steps. Non-superusers
could be given access to pl/pgsql via a simple GRANT -- either for all
users via GRANT TO PUBLIC, or on a more granular basis as desired. This
would lower the barrier to using pl/pgsql by a fairly significant
margin, but not cause any additional security exposure that I can see.

-Neil




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew - Supernews
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql by default
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Suboptimal evaluation of CASE expressions