Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Zeugswetter Andreas DBT
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff
Date
Msg-id 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C6010A519B@sdexcsrv1.sd.spardat.at
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff
List pgsql-hackers
> >
> > >         Fork off the postgres process first, then authenticate
inside of
> > > there...which would get rid of the problem with pg_user itself
being a
> > > text file vs a relation...no?
> >
> > Yes, yes, yes.  This is how authentication should be done (for HBA,
etc.)
>
> No, no, no! For security reasons, you can't fork (and exec)
> unauthenticated processes. Especially HBA authentication should be
done
> to consume as low resources as possbile.

Startup time for a valid connect client is now < 0.16 secs, so is this
really a threat ?
I would say might leave hba to postmaster (since postgres don't need to
know about it)
then fork off postgres and do the rest of the authentication.

Running postgres as root though is a **very** bad idea.
Remember that we have user defined Functions !

no, yes, yes
Andreas

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Vadim B. Mikheev"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: varchar() troubles (fwd)
Next
From: "Vadim B. Mikheev"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: subselects