> On Aug 23, 2021, at 12:51 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
>
> Simply using superuser_arg() isn't sufficient is exactly the point that
> I'm trying to make. As a 'landlord', I might very well want to have
> some kind of 'landlord' role that isn't directly a superuser but which
> could *become* a superuser by having been GRANT'd a superuser role- but
> I certainly don't want that role's objects to be able to be messed with
> by the tenant.
> If one of those other non-superuser roles is, itself, a role that can
> become a superuser
If you have a sandbox-superuser who can do anything within the sandbox but
nothing outside the sandbox, then you need a pretty good wall at the periphery
of the sandbox. Breaking sandbox-superuser-ishness into multiple distinct
privileges rather than one monolithic privilege doesn't change the need for a
good wall at the periphery. The pg_manage_database_objects role doesn't
encompass all sandbox-superuser privileges, but it is on that side of the wall.
We could agree to move the wall a little, and say that non-superuser roles who
have the ability to become superusers are on the other side of the wall.
That's fine. I'd have to rework the patch a bit, but conceptually that seems
doable. We could also say that non-superusers who are members of privileged
roles (pg_execute_server_programs, pg_signal_backend, etc) are likewise on the
other side of that wall.
Does that work?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
