Re: pg_init_privs corruption. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: pg_init_privs corruption.
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobwwVWZOt50ehu9vAY=en=p4weAe-+K3fYcmSMZdsxfag@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_init_privs corruption.  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 3:38 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Floris Van Nee <florisvannee@Optiver.com> writes:
> > This is as far as I can see the same case as what I reported a few years ago here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1574068566573.13088%40Optiver.com#488bd647ce6f5d2c92764673a7c58289
> > There was a discussion with some options, but no fix back then.
>
> Hmm, so Stephen was opining that the extension's objects shouldn't
> have gotten these privs attached in the first place.  I'm not
> quite convinced about that one way or the other, but if you buy it
> then maybe this situation is unreachable once we fix that.  I'm
> not sure though.  It's still clear that we are making ACL entries
> that aren't reflected in pg_shdepend, and that seems bad.

Yep. I think you have the right idea how to fix this. Making extension
creation somehow not subject to the same rules about default
privileges as everything else doesn't seem like either a good idea or
a real fix for this problem.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Partial aggregates pushdown
Next
From: "Jonathan S. Katz"
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?