Re: backup and permissions
От | Scott Marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: backup and permissions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | dcc563d10811132002u7eaa2763rdea3643c8e96062a@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | backup and permissions ("Fernando Moreno" <azazel.7@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: backup and permissions
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Fernando Moreno <azazel.7@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, I'm working on a little backup utility for a desktop application. It's > going to execute pg_dumpall (-r) and pg_dump, but first I have to deal with > the permissions needed to do that: > > 1. Users (pgsql roles) enabled to backup would be superusers all the time. > This sounds insecure. So, letting a user have all your data, but no power over the database is somehow more secure? I kinda get your point but wouldn't go so far as to call it insecure to require a superuser to do backups. Plus, any user who owns a db can back it up. So, you can always have individual user accounts backup individual databases. Keep in mind pg_dumpall backs up things like user accounts as well. You don't want tom dick and harry backing up user accounts do you? > 2. Users will get superuser access through a security definer function just > before the backup, then they'll be nosuperuser again. An interrupted backup > process would be dangerous, but I could check whether or not this clause is > enabled, every time a user connects. Still risky. Sounds like a lot of work to avoid having users just back up individual databases they have permissions on. > 3. Users will just be able to read every object in the database, and > pg_authid. I've done some tests and this seems enough. > > I need some advice to choose the better/safer option, what would you do? Backup with a superuser. Or split the backups to users who own their own databases.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: