| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mark Hollomon" <mhh(at)nortelnetworks(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal : changing table ownership |
| Date: | 2000-09-08 14:43:56 |
| Message-ID: | 24937.968424236@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mark Hollomon" <mhh(at)nortelnetworks(dot)com> writes:
> ALTER TABLE <table> OWNER TO <newowner>
> The owner of a table will be able to change the owner to any other user.
Doesn't this create risks parallel to file give-away (chown) in Unix?
A lot of Unices disallow chown except to the superuser.
Tables aren't currently active objects, but we've been talking about
things like making trigger functions run "setuid" to the table owner.
If that happens then table ownership giveaway is a big security hole.
> The superuser will NOT have special privileges.
Say *what* ? That's just silly.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2000-09-08 14:53:12 | Re: [7.0.2] node type 17 not supported ... |
| Previous Message | Mark Hollomon | 2000-09-08 13:26:12 | Proposal : changing table ownership |