Re: New default role- 'pg_read_all_data' - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: New default role- 'pg_read_all_data'
Date
Msg-id CABUevEx5akfNeSrHsinCRWfXzSYFNRTnBc4vHKMgum8hLrr=yg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New default role- 'pg_read_all_data'  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: New default role- 'pg_read_all_data'  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 2:38 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
Greetings,

* Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> Without having actually looked at the code, definite +1 for this feature.
> It's much requested...

Thanks.

> But, should we also have a pg_write_all_data to go along with it?

Perhaps, but could certainly be a different patch, and it'd need to be
better defined, it seems to me...  read_all is pretty straight-forward
(the general goal being "make pg_dumpall/pg_dump work"), what would
write mean?  INSERT?  DELETE?  TRUNCATE?  ALTER TABLE?  System catalogs?

Well, it's pg_write_all_*data*, so it certainly wouldn't be alter table or system catalogs.

I'd say insert/update/delete yes.

TRUNCATE is always an outlier.Given it's generally classified as DDL, I wouldn't include it.


Doesn't seem like you could just declare it to be 'allow pg_restore'
either, as that might include creating untrusted functions, et al.

No definitely not. That wouldn't be the usecase at all :)

(and fwiw to me the main use case for read_all_data also isn't pg_dump, because most people using pg_dump are already db owner or higher in my experience. But it is nice that it helps with that too)

--

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jakub Wartak
Date:
Subject: Re: Handing off SLRU fsyncs to the checkpointer
Next
From: Isaac Morland
Date:
Subject: Re: New default role- 'pg_read_all_data'