On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
Magnus, * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote: > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > > This patch adds a new default role called 'pg_access_server_files' which > > allows an administrator to GRANT to a non-superuser role the ability to > > access server-side files through PostgreSQL (as the user the database is > > running as). By itself, having this role allows a non-superuser to use > > server-side COPY and to use file_fdw (if installed by a superuser and > > GRANT'd USAGE on it). > > > > Further, this patch moves the privilege check for the remaining misc > > file functions from explicit superuser checks to the GRANT system, > > similar to what's done for pg_ls_logdir() and others. Lastly, these > > functions are changed to allow a user with the 'pg_access_server_files' > > role to be able to access files outside of the PG data directory. > > > > This follows on and continues what was recently done with the > > lo_import/export functions. There's other superuser checks to replace > > with grant'able default roles, but those probably make more sense as > > independent patches. I continue to be of the opinion that it'd be nice > > to have more fine-grained control over these functions to limit the > > access granted, but nothing here prevents that from being done and this > > at least allows some movement away from having to have roles with > > superuser access. > > Would it make sense to separate out: > * write from read. E.g. a pg_write_server_files/pg_read_server_files? ISTM > that will turn into a pretty common request...
Ok. > * execute from read/write, so COPY FROM PROGRAM etc would be a separate > role?
Suggestions on a name for this..? pg_server_copy_program?
Presumably it would also be used in postgres_fdw, so that seems like a bad name. Maybe pg_exec_server_command?
