Magnus,
* Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > This patch adds a new default role called 'pg_access_server_files'
> > which
> > > > allows an administrator to GRANT to a non-superuser role the ability to
> > > > access server-side files through PostgreSQL (as the user the database
> > is
> > > > running as). By itself, having this role allows a non-superuser to use
> > > > server-side COPY and to use file_fdw (if installed by a superuser and
> > > > GRANT'd USAGE on it).
> > > >
> > > > Further, this patch moves the privilege check for the remaining misc
> > > > file functions from explicit superuser checks to the GRANT system,
> > > > similar to what's done for pg_ls_logdir() and others. Lastly, these
> > > > functions are changed to allow a user with the 'pg_access_server_files'
> > > > role to be able to access files outside of the PG data directory.
> > > >
> > > > This follows on and continues what was recently done with the
> > > > lo_import/export functions. There's other superuser checks to replace
> > > > with grant'able default roles, but those probably make more sense as
> > > > independent patches. I continue to be of the opinion that it'd be nice
> > > > to have more fine-grained control over these functions to limit the
> > > > access granted, but nothing here prevents that from being done and this
> > > > at least allows some movement away from having to have roles with
> > > > superuser access.
> > >
> > > Would it make sense to separate out:
> > > * write from read. E.g. a pg_write_server_files/pg_read_server_files?
> > ISTM
> > > that will turn into a pretty common request...
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > > * execute from read/write, so COPY FROM PROGRAM etc would be a separate
> > > role?
> >
> > Suggestions on a name for this..? pg_server_copy_program?
>
> Presumably it would also be used in postgres_fdw, so that seems like a bad
> name. Maybe pg_exec_server_command?
I'm guessing you mean file_fdw.. :)
That name sounds alright to me though.
Thanks!
Stephen
