Re: superusers are members of all roles?
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-04-07T04:29:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: >> * Andrew Dunstan (andrew@dunslane.net) wrote: >>> The surprising (to me) consequence was that every superuser was >>> locked out of the system. I had not granted them (or anyone) the >>> role, but nevertheless these lines took effect. >> As I recall, the way we allow superusers to set role to other roles is >> by considering the superuser to be a member of every role. Now, I agree >> that such an approach doesn't make sense for pg_hba consideration. > See bug #5763, and subsequent emails. Short version: Tom argued it > wasn't a bug; Peter and I felt that it was. The problem here is that if Andrew had had the opposite case (a positive-logic hba entry requiring membership in some group to get into a database), and that had locked out superusers, he'd be on the warpath about that too. And with a lot more reason. Therefore, "fixing" this without introducing even-more-surprising behaviors is going to be a very ticklish business. I remain on the side of the fence that says it's not a bug. regards, tom lane