Re: Wrong security context for deferred triggers?
От | Laurenz Albe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Wrong security context for deferred triggers? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | fa0124428f6715143ba01ee669b0591dfe958817.camel@cybertec.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Wrong security context for deferred triggers? ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Wrong security context for deferred triggers?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2024-06-26 at 07:38 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > We have a few choices then: > 1. Status quo + documentation backpatch > 2. Change v18 narrowly + documentation backpatch > 3. Backpatch narrowly (one infers the new behavior after reading the existing documentation) > 4. Option 1, plus a new v18 owner-execution mode in lieu of the narrow change to fix the POLA violation > > I've been presenting option 4. > > Pondering further, I see now that having the owner-execution mode be the only way to avoid > the POLA violation in deferred triggers isn't great since many triggers benefit from the > implied security of being able to run in the invoker's execution context - especially if > the trigger doesn't do anything that PUBLIC cannot already do. > > So, I'm on board with option 2 at this point. Nice. I think we can safely rule out option 3. Even if it is a bug, it is not one that has bothered anybody so far that a backpatch is indicated. Yours, Laurenz Albe
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: