Re: superusers are members of all roles?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: superusers are members of all roles? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 27479.1302150557@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: superusers are members of all roles? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: superusers are members of all roles?
Re: superusers are members of all roles? Re: superusers are members of all roles? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: >> * Andrew Dunstan (andrew@dunslane.net) wrote: >>> The surprising (to me) consequence was that every superuser was >>> locked out of the system. I had not granted them (or anyone) the >>> role, but nevertheless these lines took effect. >> As I recall, the way we allow superusers to set role to other roles is >> by considering the superuser to be a member of every role. Now, I agree >> that such an approach doesn't make sense for pg_hba consideration. > See bug #5763, and subsequent emails. Short version: Tom argued it > wasn't a bug; Peter and I felt that it was. The problem here is that if Andrew had had the opposite case (a positive-logic hba entry requiring membership in some group to get into a database), and that had locked out superusers, he'd be on the warpath about that too. And with a lot more reason. Therefore, "fixing" this without introducing even-more-surprising behaviors is going to be a very ticklish business. I remain on the side of the fence that says it's not a bug. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: