Re: Standards compliance of SET ROLE / SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION
От | Chapman Flack |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Standards compliance of SET ROLE / SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e62d7d78-1724-11bd-75cf-b212cc7de029@anastigmatix.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Standards compliance of SET ROLE / SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Standards compliance of SET ROLE / SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/14/20 4:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> It wouldn't be difficult to introduce a new protocol-level option that >> prohibits RESET SESSION AUTHORIZATION; and it would also be possible >> to introduce a new protocol message that has the same effect as RESET >> SESSION AUTHORIZATION. If you do those two things, then it's possible >> to create a sandbox which the end client cannot escape but which the >> pooler can escape easily. > ... > SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION foo PERMANENT; > ... A protocol-level message > to set session auth could also be possible, of course. I'll once again whimper softly and perhaps ineffectually that an SQL-exposed equivalent like SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION foo WITH RESET COOKIE 'lkjhikuhoihkihlj'; would seem to suit the same purpose, with the advantage of being immediately usable by any kind of front- or middle-end code the instant there is a server version that supports it, without having to wait for something new at the protocol level to trickle through to n different driver implementations. Regards, -Chap
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: