On Sat, Sep 2, 2023 at 1:41 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 4:04 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-08-31 at 17:17 -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> > > Maybe move postgres_fdw to be a first class built in feature instead
> > > of
> > > an extension?
> >
> > That could make sense, but we still have to solve the problem of how to
> > present a built-in FDW.
> >
> > FDWs don't have a schema, so it can't be inside pg_catalog. So we'd
> > need some special logic somewhere to make pg_dump and psql \dew work as
> > expected, and I'm not quite sure what to do there.
>
> I'm worried that an approach based on postgres_fdw would have security
> problems. I think that we don't want postgres_fdw installed in every
> PostgreSQL cluster for security reasons. And I think that the set of
> people who should be permitted to manage connection strings for
> logical replication subscriptions could be different from the set of
> people who are entitled to use postgres_fdw.
If postgres_fdw was the only way to specify a connection to be used
with subscriptions, what you are saying makes sense. But it's not. We
will continue to support current mechanism which doesn't require
postgres_fdw to be installed on every PostgreSQL cluster.
What security problems do you foresee if postgres_fdw is used in
addition to the current mechanism?
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat