On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> 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 user who is running the non-foreign server. >>> >>> But I think these super user checks should be run against the userid of the >>> USER MAPPING being used for the connection, not the userid of currently >>> logged on user. >> >> So, if the user mapping user is a superuser locally, this would allow >> any lambda user of the local server to attempt a connection to the >> remote server. It looks dangerous rather dangerous to me to authorize >> that, even if the current behavior is a bit inconsistent I agree. > > I don't know what "any lambda user" means. Did you mean to write "any > random user"?
Yes, in this context that would be "any non-superuser" or "any user without superuser rights". Actually that's a French-ism. I just translated it naturally to English to define a user that has no access to advanced features :) -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
