On Thu, 2024-01-18 at 09:24 +0530, Shubham Khanna wrote:
> I tried to apply the patch but it is failing at the Head. It is
> giving
> the following error:
I am withdrawing this patch from the CF until it's more clear that this
is what we really want to do.
Thank you for looking into it.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 9:19 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2023-07-17 at 12:16 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > Based on feedback, I plan to commit soon.
>
> Attached is a new version.
>
> Changes:
>
> * Also switch the search_path during CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW, so that
> it's consistent with
On Tue, 2023-10-31 at 13:16 -0400, Isaac Morland wrote:
> Perhaps the search_path for running a maintenance command should be
> the search_path set for the table owner (ALTER ROLE … SET search_path
> …)?
After some thought, I don't think that's the right approach. It adds
another way search path
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 15:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> Isaac Morland writes:
> > I still think the right default is that CREATE FUNCTION stores the
> > search_path in effect when it runs with the function, and that is the
> > search_path used to run the function (and don't "BEGIN ATOMIC" functions
> >
Isaac Morland writes:
> I still think the right default is that CREATE FUNCTION stores the
> search_path in effect when it runs with the function, and that is the
> search_path used to run the function (and don't "BEGIN ATOMIC" functions
> partially work this way already?).
I don't see how that
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 14:22, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-10-31 at 13:16 -0400, Isaac Morland wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the search_path for running a maintenance command should be
> > the search_path set for the table owner (ALTER ROLE … SET search_path
> > …)?
>
> That's an interesting idea; I
On Tue, 2023-10-31 at 13:16 -0400, Isaac Morland wrote:
> Perhaps the search_path for running a maintenance command should be
> the search_path set for the table owner (ALTER ROLE … SET search_path
> …)?
That's an interesting idea; I hadn't considered that, or at least not
very deeply. I feel
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 19:04, Jeff Davis wrote:
The approach of locking down search_path during maintenance commands
> would solve the problem, but it means that we are enforcing search_path
> in some contexts and not others. That's not great, but it's similar to
> what we are doing when we
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 04:04:26PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Do we still want to do this?
>
> Right now, the MAINTAIN privilege is blocking on some way to prevent
> malicious users from abusing the MAINTAIN privilege and search_path to
> acquire the table owner's privileges.
I vote +1 for
On Fri, 2023-07-21 at 15:32 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Attached is a new version.
Do we still want to do this?
Right now, the MAINTAIN privilege is blocking on some way to prevent
malicious users from abusing the MAINTAIN privilege and search_path to
acquire the table owner's privileges.
The
On Sat, 2023-07-22 at 07:04 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> Commit a117ceb added that, and it added some test cases that behaved
> differently without that.
Thank you. The reasoning there seems to apply to search_path
restriction as well, so I will leave it as-is.
I'll wait a few more days for
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 03:32:43PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Why do we switch to the table owner and use
> SECURITY_RESTRICTED_OPERATION in DefineIndex(), when we will switch in
> index_build (etc.) anyway?
Commit a117ceb added that, and it added some test cases that behaved
differently without
On Mon, 2023-07-17 at 12:16 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Based on feedback, I plan to commit soon.
Attached is a new version.
Changes:
* Also switch the search_path during CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW, so that
it's consistent with REFRESH. As a part of this change, I slightly
reordered things in
On Mon, 2023-07-17 at 10:58 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 02:13:33PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > The 2018 security fixes instigated many function repairs that
> > $SUBJECT would
> > otherwise instigate. That wasn't too painful. The net new pain of
> > $SUBJECT
> > will
On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 02:13:33PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> The 2018 security fixes instigated many function repairs that $SUBJECT would
> otherwise instigate. That wasn't too painful. The net new pain of $SUBJECT
> will be less, since the 2018 security fixes prepared the path. Hence, I
>
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 02:07:27PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 2:00 PM Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 1:37 PM David G. Johnston
> > wrote:
> > > I'm against simply breaking the past without any recourse as what we
> > did for pg_dump/pg_restore
On Thu, 2023-07-13 at 13:37 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> If this is limited to MAINT, which I'm in support of, there is no
> need for an "escape hatch". A prerequisite for leveraging the new
> feature is that you fix the code so it conforms to the new way of
> doing things.
The current
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 2:00 PM Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 1:37 PM David G. Johnston
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm against simply breaking the past without any recourse as what we
> did for pg_dump/pg_restore still bothers me.
>
> I'm sure this is tangential, but can you please
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 1:37 PM David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
> I'm against simply breaking the past without any recourse as what we did for
> pg_dump/pg_restore still bothers me.
I'm sure this is tangential, but can you please provide some
context/links to the change you're referring to here.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:54 PM Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>
> The approach seems good to me. My concern is with this change's
> potential to cause an extended database outage. Hence sending it out
> as part of v16, without any escape hatch for the DBA, is my objection.
>
>
If this is limited to
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:56 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> The current approach seemed to get support from Noah, Nathan, and Greg
> Stark.
>
> Concerns were raised by Gurjeet, Tom, and Robert in the 16 cycle; but
I didn't see Tom's or Robert's concerns raised in this thread. I see
now that for some
On Thu, 2023-07-06 at 18:39 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> * The fix might not go far enough or might be in the wrong place. I'm
> open to suggestion here, too. Maybe we can make it part of the
> general
> function call mechanism, and can be overridden by explicitly setting
> the function search
Hi,
On Thu, 2023-07-06 at 23:22 -0400, Isaac Morland wrote:
> Maybe pg_upgrade could apply "SET search_path TO pg_catalog, pg_temp"
> to any function used in a functional index that doesn't have a
> search_path setting of its own?
I don't think we want to go down the road of trying to solve this
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 21:39, Jeff Davis wrote:
I apologize in advance if anything I’ve written below is either too obvious
or too crazy or misinformed to belong here. I hope I have something to say
that is on point, but feel unsure what makes sense to say.
* It might break for users who have a
On Fri, 2023-05-26 at 16:21 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Maintenance commands (ANALYZE, CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW,
> REINDEX, and VACUUM) currently run as the table owner, and as a
> SECURITY_RESTRICTED_OPERATION.
>
> I propose that we also fix the search_path to "pg_catalog, pg_temp"
>
On Fri, 2023-06-09 at 16:29 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> I'm not sure if mine is a valid concern, and it has been a long time
> since I looked at the search_path's and switching Role's implications
> (CVE-2009-4136) so pardon my ignorance.
>
> It feels a bit late in release cycle to introduce
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 2:00 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2023-06-08 at 21:55 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 06:08:08PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> > > I guess that's pretty narrow and a reasonable thing to desupport.
> > > Users could just mark those functions with
On Thu, 2023-06-08 at 21:55 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 06:08:08PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> > I guess that's pretty narrow and a reasonable thing to desupport.
> > Users could just mark those functions with search_path or schema
> > qualify the object references in
On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 06:08:08PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> I guess that's pretty narrow and a reasonable thing to desupport.
> Users could just mark those functions with search_path or schema
> qualify the object references in them. Perhaps we should also be
> picking up cases like that sooner
On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 19:22, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> Maintenance commands (ANALYZE, CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW,
> REINDEX, and VACUUM) currently run as the table owner, and as a
> SECURITY_RESTRICTED_OPERATION.
>
> I propose that we also fix the search_path to "pg_catalog, pg_temp"
> when
Maintenance commands (ANALYZE, CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW,
REINDEX, and VACUUM) currently run as the table owner, and as a
SECURITY_RESTRICTED_OPERATION.
I propose that we also fix the search_path to "pg_catalog, pg_temp"
when running maintenance commands, for two reasons:
1. Make the
31 matches
Mail list logo
