Re: SET ROLE and reserved roles

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> Based on our discussion at PGConf.US and the comments up-thread from
>> Tom, I'll work up a patch to remove those checks around SET ROLE and
>> friends which were trying to prevent default roles from possibly being
>> made to own objects.
>>
>> Should the checks, which have been included since nearly the start of
>> this version of the patch, to prevent users from GRANT'ing other rights
>> to the default roles remain?  Or should those also be removed?  I
>> *think* pg_dump/pg_upgrade would be fine with rights being added, and if
>> we aren't preventing ownership of objects then we aren't going to be
>> able to remove such roles in any case.
>
> It'd be good to test that that works.  If it does, I think we may as
> well allow it.
>
>> Of course, with these default roles, users can't REVOKE the rights which
>> are granted to them as that happens in C code, outside of the GRANT
>> system.
>
> I think you mean that they can't revoke the special magic rights, but
> they could revoke any additional privileges which were granted.
>
>> Working up a patch to remove these checks should be pretty quickly done
>> (iirc, I've actually got an independent patch around from when I added
>> them, just need to find it and then go through the committed patches to
>> make sure I take care of everything), but would like to make sure that
>> we're now all on the same page and that *all* of these checks should be
>> removed, making default roles just exactly like "regular" roles, except
>> that they're created at initdb time and have "special" rights provided
>> by C-level code checks.
>
> That's what I'm thinking.  I would welcome other views.

Ping!

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company