Re: should we allow users with a predefined role to access pg_backend_memory_contexts view and pg_log_backend_memory_contexts function? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: should we allow users with a predefined role to access pg_backend_memory_contexts view and pg_log_backend_memory_contexts function?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobQoWZn62qWRX+OOFjBPhdubxYTBeO-GSNPcLvBHh4ZvA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: should we allow users with a predefined role to access pg_backend_memory_contexts view and pg_log_backend_memory_contexts function?  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: should we allow users with a predefined role to access pg_backend_memory_contexts view and pg_log_backend_memory_contexts function?
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:33 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> Or not. I can see the argument that, because it just goes into the log, that it doesn’t make sense to grant to a
predefinedrole, since that role wouldn’t be able to see the results even if it had access. 

Yeah. I think we should really only use predefined roles where it's
not practical to have people use GRANT/REVOKE.

For instance, it makes sense to have pg_execute_server_program because
there's no particular function (or other object) to which you could
grant permissions at the SQL level to achieve the same results. And
pg_read_all_stats doesn't just allow you to run more functions: it
changes which fields those functions populate in the returned data,
and which they mask out for security reasons. So, GRANT/REVOKE
wouldn't do it in that case.

But if there's one particular function that someone may or may not
want a non-superuser to be able to execute, let's just let them do
that. It doesn't need to be tied to a predefined role, and in fact
it's more flexible if it isn't.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays)
Next
From: tushar
Date:
Subject: Re: extensible options syntax for replication parser?