Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>
>>Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Maybe someone should look into enabling slony to not run as a
>>>superuser?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>That was my initial reaction to this suggestion. But then I realised
>>that it might well make sense to have a separate connection-limited
>>superuser for Slony purposes (or any other special purpose) alongside an
>>unlimited superuser.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, the real question in my mind is why Slony can't be trusted
>to use the right number of connections to start with. If you don't
>trust it that far, what are you doing letting it into your database as
>superuser to start with?
>
>As for "connection-limited superuser", if you can't do ALTER USER SET
>on yourself then you aren't a superuser, so any such restriction is
>illusory anyway.
>
>
>
As a protection against malice, yes. I think Rod was more interested in
some protection against stupidity.
Maybe the real answer is that Slony should connect as a non-superuser
and call security definer functions for the privileged things it needs
to do.
cheers
andrew
