Robert, all,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > I don't see a reason to block a directly-logged-in superuser from using a
> > mapping. I asked in the closed list whether the current (released)
> > behavior was a security bug, and
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I don't see a reason to block a directly-logged-in superuser from using a
> mapping. I asked in the closed list whether the current (released)
> behavior was a security bug, and the answer was no. And I don't know why
> else to block superusers
On 4 October 2017 at 18:13, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> > I think that foreign tables ought to behave as views do, where they run
>> > as
>> > the owner rather than the invoker. No one has ta
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 04:08:08PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > I think that foreign tables ought to behave as views do, where they run as
> > the owner rather than the invoker. No one has talked me out of it, but no
> > one has supported me o
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > OK. And if you want the first one, you can wrap it in a view currently,
> but
> > if it were changed I don't know what you would do if you want the 2nd one
> > (other than having every use
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> OK. And if you want the first one, you can wrap it in a view currently, but
> if it were changed I don't know what you would do if you want the 2nd one
> (other than having every user create their own set of foreign tables). So I
> guess the cu
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > I think that foreign tables ought to behave as views do, where they run
> as
> > the owner rather than the invoker. No one has talked me out of it, but
> no
> > one has supported me on i
On 09/14/2017 08:33 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:> Attached is a new patch which
fixes the style issue you mentioned.
Thanks, the patch looks good no,w and as far as I can tell there was no
need to update the comments or the documentation so I am setting this as
ready for committer.
Andreas
--
Sen
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I think that foreign tables ought to behave as views do, where they run as
> the owner rather than the invoker. No one has talked me out of it, but no
> one has supported me on it either. But I think it is too late to change
> that now.
That'
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 07/27/2017 09:45 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:> Here is an updated patch. This
> version allows you use the password-less
>
>> connection if you either are the super-user directly (which is the
>> existing committed behavior), or if you are u
On 07/27/2017 09:45 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:> Here is an updated patch.
This version allows you use the password-less
connection if you either are the super-user directly (which is the
existing committed behavior), or if you are using the super-user's
mapping because you are querying a super-user-
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> 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
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Michael Paquier
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 20
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Jeff Janes
> wrote:
> >>> postgres_fdw has some checks to enforce that non-sup
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> postgres_fdw has some checks to enforce that non-superusers must connect to
>>> the foreign server with a password-based meth
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Jeff Janes 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
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Jeff Janes 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
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Jeff Janes 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
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Jeff Janes 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
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 the
19 matches
Mail list logo