Re: Proposing COPY .. WITH PERMISSIVE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 09/02/2015 10:10 PM, dinesh kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc <mailto:stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>> wrote:
> 
>     On 07/25/2015 03:38 AM, dinesh kumar wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>
>     > <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:15 PM, dinesh kumar
>     >     <dineshkumar02@gmail.com <mailto:dineshkumar02@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:dineshkumar02@gmail.com <mailto:dineshkumar02@gmail.com>>>
>     wrote:
>     >     > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Robert Haas
>     >     <robertmhaas@gmail.com <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>     >     >>
>     >     >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:19 PM, dinesh kumar
>     >     <dineshkumar02@gmail.com <mailto:dineshkumar02@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:dineshkumar02@gmail.com <mailto:dineshkumar02@gmail.com>>>
>     >     >> wrote:
>     >     >> > Sorry for my  unclear description about the proposal.
>     >     >> >
>     >     >> > "WITH PERMISSIVE" is equal to our existing behavior. That
>     is, chmod=644
>     >     >> > on
>     >     >> > the created files.
>     >     >> >
>     >     >> > If User don't specify "PERMISSIVE" as an option, then the
>     chmod=600 on
>     >     >> > created files. In this way, we can restrict the other
>     users from reading
>     >     >> > these files.
>     >     >>
>     >     >> There might be some benefit in allowing the user to choose the
>     >     >> permissions, but (1) I doubt we want to change the default
>     behavior
>     >     >> and (2) providing only two options doesn't seem flexible
>     enough.
>     >     >>
>     >     >
>     >     > Thanks for your inputs Robert.
>     >     >
>     >     > 1) IMO, we will keep the exiting behavior as it is.
>     >     >
>     >     > 2) As the actual proposal talks about the permissions of
>     group/others. So,
>     >     > we can add few options as below to the WITH clause
>     >     >
>     >     > COPY
>     >     > ..
>     >     > ..
>     >     > WITH
>     >     > [
>     >     > NO
>     >     > (READ,WRITE)
>     >     > PERMISSION TO
>     >     > (GROUP,OTHERS)
>     >     > ]
>     >
>     >     If we're going to do anything here, it should use COPY's
>     >     extensible-options syntax, I think.
>     >
>     >
>     > Thanks Robert. Let me send a patch for this.
> 
> 
>     how are you going to handle windows or unix ACLs here?
>     Its permission model is quite different and more powerful than (non-acl
>     based) unix in general, handling this in a flexible way might soon get
>     very complicated and complex for limited gain...
> 
> 
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> I had the same questions too. But, I believe, our initdb works in these
> cases, after creating the data cluster. Isn't ?

maybe - but having a fixed "default"  is very different from baking a
classic unix permission concept of user/group/world^others into actual
DDL or into a COPY option. The proposed syntax might make some sense to
a admin used to a unix style system but it is likely utterly
incomprehensible to somebody who is used to (windows style) ACLs.

I dont have a good answer on what to do else atm but I dont think we
should embedded traditional/historical unix permission models in our
grammer unless really really needed...


Stefan