On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 2:27 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 3:31 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > > On 2021-05-06 14:56:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> If we think it's worth having a predefined role for, OK. However,
> > >> I don't like the future I see us heading towards where there are
> > >> hundreds of random predefined roles. Is there an existing role
> > >> that it'd be reasonable to attach this ability to?
> >
> > > It does seem like it'd be good to group it in with something
> > > else. There's nothing fitting 100% though.
> >
> > I'd probably vote for pg_read_all_data, considering that much of
> > the concern about this has to do with the possibility of exposure
> > of sensitive data. I'm not quite sure what the security expectations
> > are for pg_monitor.
>
> Maybe we should have a role that is specifically for server debugging
> type things. This kind of overlaps with Mark Dilger's proposal to try
> to allow SET for security-sensitive GUCs to be delegated via
> predefined roles. The exact way to divide that up is open to question,
> but it wouldn't seem crazy to me if the same role controlled the
> ability to do this plus the ability to set the GUCs
> backtrace_functions, debug_invalidate_system_caches_always,
> wal_consistency_checking, and maybe a few other things.
+1 for the idea of having a new role for this. Currently I have
implemented this feature to be supported only for the superuser. If we
are ok with having a new role to handle debugging features, I will
make a 002 patch to handle this.
Regards,
Vignesh
