Greetings,
* Gilles Darold (gilles@darold.net) wrote:
> Le 28/08/2020 à 15:26, Stephen Frost a écrit :
> >* Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> >>On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 2:38 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> >>>* Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> >>>>Without having actually looked at the code, definite +1 for this feature.
> >>>>It's much requested...
> >>>Thanks.
> >>>
> >>>>But, should we also have a pg_write_all_data to go along with it?
> >>>Perhaps, but could certainly be a different patch, and it'd need to be
> >>>better defined, it seems to me... read_all is pretty straight-forward
> >>>(the general goal being "make pg_dumpall/pg_dump work"), what would
> >>>write mean? INSERT? DELETE? TRUNCATE? ALTER TABLE? System catalogs?
> >>Well, it's pg_write_all_*data*, so it certainly wouldn't be alter table or
> >>system catalogs.
> >>
> >>I'd say insert/update/delete yes.
> >>
> >>TRUNCATE is always an outlier.Given it's generally classified as DDL, I
> >>wouldn't include it.
> >Alright, that seems like it'd be pretty easy. We already have a check
> >in pg_class_aclmask to disallow modification of system catalogs w/o
> >being a superuser, so we should be alright to add a similar check for
> >insert/update/delete just below where I added the SELECT check.
> >
> >>>Doesn't seem like you could just declare it to be 'allow pg_restore'
> >>>either, as that might include creating untrusted functions, et al.
> >>No definitely not. That wouldn't be the usecase at all :)
> >Good. :)
> >
> >>(and fwiw to me the main use case for read_all_data also isn't pg_dump,
> >>because most people using pg_dump are already db owner or higher in my
> >>experience. But it is nice that it helps with that too)
> >Glad to have confirmation that there's other use-cases this helps with.
> >
> >I'll post an updated patch with that added in a day or two.
>
> Looking at this thread I was thinking about the FDW. Does role
> pg_read_all_data will allow to execute pg_dump with --include-foreign-data
> option? If this is the case how about priviledge on fdw and foreign server?
> If this is the behavior we want I guess that the modification should be
> applied to pg_foreign_data_wrapper_aclmask() and pg_foreign_server_aclmask()
> too.
Using an FDW will often also require having a user mapping and there's
no way for that to be accomplished through only GRANT'ing a default
role, so I don't think we should mix this specific role with the FDW
permissions system.
Thanks,
Stephen
