Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Monitoring roles patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Monitoring roles patch
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZA-gM+Un0E65seyVT45axpaH8q-QRDs8L+nSUrynkSMA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Monitoring roles patch  (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>)
Responses Re: Monitoring roles patch  (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>)
Re: Monitoring roles patch  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Re: Monitoring roles patch  (Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> I don't see any precedent in the code for having a hardcoded role, other than
>> superuser, and allowing privileges based on a hardcoded test for membership
>> in that role.  I'm struggling to think of all the security implications of that.
>
> This would be the first.

Isn't pg_signal_backend an existing precedent?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Move all am-related reloption code intosrc/backend/access/[am-name] and get rid of relopt_kind for custom AM