On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 04:01:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can I have a TODO for this?
* Prevent accidental re-use of sysids for dropped users and groups
The other part of the thread was something like
* Prevent dropping user that still owns
(Thought triggered by something Tom said the other day)
Is this a security hole? Looks like one to me. Would it be better to use
a sequence generator for sysids instead of using max+1 on the user
table? Or else store the last sysid used somewhere?
andrew
facetest=# create user blurfl;
CREATE
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can I have a TODO for this?
* Prevent accidental re-use of sysids for dropped users and groups
The other part of the thread was something like
* Prevent dropping user that still owns objects, or auto-drop the objects
which if successful would eliminate
Can I have a TODO for this?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Is this a security hole? Looks like one to me. Would it be better to use
a sequence
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Regarding second item, I don't think anyone suggested autodropping
objects, or else I misunderstood. (That would be dangerous, to say the
least, IMHO).
I agree, but some applications might use tables dedicated to a specific
user. While this is IMHO not a good style to
Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Is this a security hole? Looks like one to me. Would it be better to use
a sequence generator for sysids instead of using max+1 on the user
table? Or else store the last sysid used somewhere?
This issue has
Thanks. Added.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can I have a TODO for this?
* Prevent accidental re-use of sysids for dropped users and groups
The other part of the thread was something
Alvaro Herrera Munoz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about the use of a shared sequence object to generate sysids?
I didn't think it needed its own mention in the TODO item, but if you
want to...
regards, tom lane
---(end of
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
(Thought triggered by something Tom said the other day)
Is this a security hole? Looks like one to me. Would it be better to use
a sequence generator for sysids instead of using max+1 on the user
table? Or else store the last sysid used
I like the sequence generator idea too.
I know Unix is bad in this area - but that's no reason for us to be bad
too. This is actually one of the (few) areas where Windows is better
than Unix. Let's go for best practice.
(new todo item Prevent automatic reuse of sysids ?)
andrew
Tom Lane
10 matches
Mail list logo