Re: pg_cancel_backend by non-superuser

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_cancel_backend by non-superuser
Date: 2011-10-02 17:38:40
Message-ID: m2d3efwaxr.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> ?wrote:
>> >>> ISTM it would be reasonably non-controversial to allow users to issue
>> >>> pg_cancel_backend against other sessions logged in as the same userID.
>> >>> The question is whether to go further than that, and if so how much.
>> >>
>> >> In *every* case -- and there are many -- where we've had people
>> >> express pain, this would have sufficed.
>
> +1 for allowing that unconditionally.

+1

>> Or how about making it a grantable database-level privilege?
>
> I think either is overkill. You can implement any policy by interposing a
> SECURITY DEFINER wrapper around pg_cancel_backend().

I still like the idea of grant cancel and grant terminate. For another
patch.

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2011-10-02 19:05:31 Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor
Previous Message Kohei KaiGai 2011-10-02 17:16:33 Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem