Re: initdb recommendations - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jonathan S. Katz
Subject Re: initdb recommendations
Date
Msg-id e3f7ad32-f663-0d2d-73c6-cafa3def9dfc@postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: initdb recommendations  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 7/22/19 3:20 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 7/22/19 3:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Frankly, this episode makes me wonder whether changing the default is
>> even a good idea at this point.  People who care about security have
>> already set up their processes to select a useful-to-them auth option,
>> while people who do not care are unlikely to be happy about having
>> security rammed down their throats, especially if it results in the
>> sort of push-ups we're looking at having to do in the buildfarm.
>> I think this has effectively destroyed the argument that only
>> trivial adjustments will be required.
>
> There's a strong tendency these days to be secure by default, so I
> understand the motivation.

So perhaps to bring back the idea that spawned this thread[1], as an
interim step, we provide some documented recommendations on how to set
things up. The original patch has a warning box (and arguably defaulting
to "trust" deserves a warning) but could be revised to be inline with
the text.

Jonathan

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/bec17f0a-ddb1-8b95-5e69-368d9d0a3390%40postgresql.org


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: getting ERROR "relation 16401 has no triggers" with partitionforeign key alter
Next
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: Psql patch to show access methods info