On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Michael Paquier > > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> postgres_fdw has some checks to enforce that non-superusers must > connect to > >>> the foreign server with a password-based method. The reason for this > is to > >>> prevent the authentication to the foreign server from happening on the > basis > >>> of the OS user who is running the non-foreign server. > >>> > >>> But I think these super user checks should be run against the userid > of the > >>> USER MAPPING being used for the connection, not the userid of currently > >>> logged on user. > >> > >> So, if the user mapping user is a superuser locally, this would allow > >> any lambda user of the local server to attempt a connection to the > >> remote server. It looks dangerous rather dangerous to me to authorize > >> that, even if the current behavior is a bit inconsistent I agree. > > > > I don't know what "any lambda user" means. Did you mean to write "any > > random user"? > > Yes, in this context that would be "any non-superuser" or "any user > without superuser rights". Actually that's a French-ism. I just > translated it naturally to English to define a user that has no access > to advanced features :) > Thanks for the patch, but it breaking the existing functionality as per the other mails. Marked as "returned with feedback" in 2016-11 commitfest. Regards, Hari Babu Fujitsu Australia
