Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff
От | todd brandys |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 199801182129.AA01155@eng3.hep.uiuc.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Well, I can create the table quite easily. The issue is what type of > flack we will get by haveing pg_user non-readable, and removing the user What if we were to put the pg_user accessibility to the admin setting up PostgreSQL (at least until pg_privileges could become a reality.). If you look in dbinit--toward the end of the script--I run a SQL command to revoke all privileges from public on the pg_user table. If you are not going to use the pg_pwd scheme for authentication, then you don't need to run this command. All we need do for now is print out a little message saying that if you use HBA or Kerberos, then say No to blocking the PUBLIC from accessing pg_user. We also say that if you choose to block access to pg_user, these are the consequences. When a better privileges method is developed this question in the dbinit script can be eliminated. I myself would choose to block access to the pg_user relation. Others may not want it this way. Using the above scenario, the user would have an informed choice that would be taken care of at initialization. Todd A. Brandys brandys@eng3.hep.uiuc.edu
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: