On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 7:21 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:25 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> >
> > > As this patch is currently written, pg_monitor has access these
> > > functions, though I don't think that's the right privilege level at
> > > least for pg_get_raw_wal_record().
> >
> > Yeah, I agree that pg_monitor isn't the right thing for such a function
> > to be checking.
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 1:52 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> >
> > * pg_get_raw_wal_record() seems too powerful for pg_monitor. Maybe that
> > function should require pg_read_server_files? Or at least
> > pg_read_all_data?
>
> The v9 patch set posted at [1] grants execution on
> pg_get_raw_wal_record() to the pg_monitor role.
>
> pg_read_all_data may not be the right choice, but pg_read_server_files
> is as these functions do read the WAL files on the server. If okay,
> I'm happy to grant execution on pg_get_raw_wal_record() to the
> pg_read_server_files role.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACVRH-z8mZLyFkpLvY4qRhxQCqU_BLkFTtwt%2BTPZNhfEVg%40mail.gmail.com
Attaching v10 patch set which allows pg_get_raw_wal_record to be
executed by either superuser or users with pg_read_server_files role,
no other change from v9 patch set.
Please review it further.
Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
