Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Stephen Frost <[email protected]> wrote:
>> * Andrew Dunstan ([email protected]) wrote:
>>> The surprising (to me) consequence was that every superuser was
>>> locked out of the system. I had not granted them (or anyone) the
>>> role, but nevertheless these lines took effect.
>> As I recall, the way we allow superusers to set role to other roles is
>> by considering the superuser to be a member of every role. Now, I agree
>> that such an approach doesn't make sense for pg_hba consideration.
> See bug #5763, and subsequent emails. Short version: Tom argued it
> wasn't a bug; Peter and I felt that it was.
The problem here is that if Andrew had had the opposite case (a
positive-logic hba entry requiring membership in some group to get into
a database), and that had locked out superusers, he'd be on the warpath
about that too. And with a lot more reason.
Therefore, "fixing" this without introducing even-more-surprising
behaviors is going to be a very ticklish business. I remain on the side
of the fence that says it's not a bug.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
