Re: Non-superuser subscription owners - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Non-superuser subscription owners
Date
Msg-id 9e762bb944977a4d9065f328c4d42bef5a0de168.camel@j-davis.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Non-superuser subscription owners  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Non-superuser subscription owners  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: Non-superuser subscription owners  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 09:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I certainly agree that the security model isn't in a reasonable place
> right now. However, I feel that:
>
> (1) adding an extra predefined role

> (2) even adding the connection string security stuff

I don't see how these points are related to the question of whether you
should commit your non-superuser-subscription-owners patch or logical-
repl-as-table-owner patch first.


My perspective is that logical replication is an unfinished feature
with an incomplete design. As I said earlier, that's why I backed away
from trying to do non-superuser subscriptions as a documented feature:
it feels like we need to settle some of the underlying pieces first.

There are some big issues, like the security model for replaying
changes. And some smaller issues like feature gaps (RLS doesn't work,
if I remember correctly, and maybe something with partitioning). There
are potential clashes with other proposals, like the CREATE
SUBSCRIPTION ... SERVER, which I hope can be sorted out later. And I
don't feel like I have a good handle on the publisher security model
and threats, which hopefully is just a matter of documenting some best
practices.

Each time we dig into one of these issues I learn something, and I
think others do, too. If we skip past that process and start adding new
features on top of this unfinished design, then I think we are setting
ourselves up for trouble that is going to be harder to fix later.

I don't mean to say all of the above issues are blockers or that they
should all be resolved in my favor. But there are enough issues and
some of those issues are serious enough that I feel like it's premature
to just go ahead with the non-superuser subscriptions and the
predefined role.

There are already users, which complicates things. And you make a good
point that some important users may be already working around the
flaws. But there's already a patch and discussion going on for some
security model improvements (thanks to you), so let's try to get that
one in first. If we can't, it's probably because we learned something
important.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables