Re: PG 12 draft release notes
От | Ian Barwick |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PG 12 draft release notes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8100b384-be37-652f-0ef9-de9c7069417e@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PG 12 draft release notes (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: PG 12 draft release notes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/22/19 4:26 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 09:19:53AM +0900, Ian Barwick wrote: >> the last two items are performance improvements not related to authentication; >> presumably the VACUUM item would be better off in the "Utility Commands" >> section and the TRUNCATE item in "General Performance"? > > I agree with removing them from authentication, but these are not > performance-related items. Instead I think that "Utility commands" is > a place where they can live better. > > I am wondering if we should insist on the DOS attacks on a server, as > non-authorized users are basically able to block any tables, and > authorization is only a part of it, one of the worst parts > actually... Anyway, I think that "This prevents unauthorized locking > delays." does not provide enough details. What about reusing the > first paragraph of the commits? Here is an idea: > "A caller of TRUNCATE/VACUUM/ANALYZE could previously queue for an > access exclusive lock on a relation it may not have permission to > truncate/vacuum/analyze, potentially interfering with users authorized > to work on it. This could prevent users from accessing some relations > they have access to, in some cases preventing authentication if a > critical catalog relation was blocked." Ah, if that's the intent behind/use for those changes (I haven't looked at them in any detail, was just scanning the release notes) then it certainly needs some explanation along those lines. Regards Ian Barwick -- Ian Barwick https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: