Re: [v9.2] sepgsql's DROP Permission checks
От | Kohei KaiGai |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [v9.2] sepgsql's DROP Permission checks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CADyhKSWR1agHnNvYQD9X_e8RPUpLO2JC7yWx3gqUgszi=d=TVQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [v9.2] sepgsql's DROP Permission checks (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [v9.2] sepgsql's DROP Permission checks
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2012/1/18 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote: >> Do I modify the patch to place object-access-hook on deleteOneObject >> (probably, it is the best position to track actual deletion)? >> One problem is case of deletion of columns by ALTER TABLE. >> It just marks "attisdropped" flag; without removing catalog entry. >> Do we ought to put this hook on ATExecDropColumn exceptionally? > > +1. > The attached one is a revised version. It adds OAT_DROP on the following points: * deleteOneObject() * dropdb() * DropTableSpace() * DropRole() One thing I overlooked on the upthread is that ATExecDropColumn() also calls performDeletion, then RemoveAttributeById() set attisdropped. So, this function was not a point to be hooked exceptionally. On the other hand, as a source code comment on doDeletion() says, deletion of shared database objects (database, tablespace and role) are not hooked on deleteOneObject(), thus, I added a hook for each deletion code of these objects. In sepgsql side, it determines a case to apply permission checks according to the contextual information; that is same technique when we implemented create permission. Thus, it could checks db_xxx:{drop} permission correctly. Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: