Horton

Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM`

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Martín Marqués <martin.marques@gmail.com>, Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele.bartolini@enterprisedb.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-01-31T05:28:37Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add allow_alter_system GUC.

  2. Rename COMPAT_OPTIONS_CLIENT to COMPAT_OPTIONS_OTHER.

  3. Remove support for version-0 calling conventions.

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> My larger point here is that trying to enforce restrictions on
>> superusers *within* Postgres is simply not a good plan, for
>> largely the same reasons that Robert questioned making the
>> GUC mechanism police itself.  It needs to be done outside,
>> either at the filesystem level or via some other kernel-level
>> security system.

> The idea of adding a file to the data directory appeals to me.
>
> optional_runtime_features.conf
> alter_system=enabled
> copy_from_program=enabled
> copy_to_program=disabled

... so, exactly what keeps an uncooperative superuser from
overwriting that file?

You cannot enforce such restrictions within Postgres.
It has to be done by an outside mechanism.  If you think
different, you are mistaken.

			regards, tom lane