No more need for 'privileges' file.
This commit is contained in:
Bruce Momjian
parent
88958ea875
commit
b4d24d78a9
@ -1,795 +0,0 @@
|
||||
From pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Thu Apr 19 15:15:30 2001
|
||||
Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.com (mailout02.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.17])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3JId1301805
|
||||
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:39:02 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from peter_e@gmx.net)
|
||||
Received: from fwd03.sul.t-online.com
|
||||
by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp
|
||||
id 14qGe9-0005Ng-05; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:47:05 +0200
|
||||
Received: from peter.localdomain (520083510237-0001@[217.80.146.53]) by fmrl03.sul.t-online.com
|
||||
with esmtp id 14qGe4-2H8UKWC; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:47:00 +0200
|
||||
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:58:12 +0200 (CEST)
|
||||
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
|
||||
To: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Subject: System catalog representation of access privileges
|
||||
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0104182009040.762-100000@peter.localdomain>
|
||||
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||||
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
|
||||
X-Sender: 520083510237-0001@t-dialin.net
|
||||
X-Archive-Number: 200104/704
|
||||
X-Sequence-Number: 7734
|
||||
Status: RO
|
||||
|
||||
Oldtimers might recall the last thread about enhancements of the access
|
||||
privilege system. See
|
||||
|
||||
http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-hackers/2000-05/msg01220.html
|
||||
|
||||
to catch up.
|
||||
|
||||
It was more or less agreed that privilege descriptors should be split out
|
||||
into a separate table for better flexibility and ease of processing. The
|
||||
dispute was that the old proposal wanted to store only one privilege per
|
||||
row. I have devised something more efficient:
|
||||
|
||||
pg_privilege (
|
||||
priobj oid, -- oid of table, column, function, etc.
|
||||
prigrantor oid, -- user who granted the privilege
|
||||
prigrantee oid, -- user who owns the privilege
|
||||
|
||||
priselect char, -- specific privileges follow...
|
||||
prihierarchy char,
|
||||
priinsert char,
|
||||
priupdate char,
|
||||
pridelete char,
|
||||
prireferences char,
|
||||
priunder char,
|
||||
pritrigger char,
|
||||
prirule char
|
||||
/* obvious extension mechanism... */
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
The various "char" fields would be NULL for not granted, some character
|
||||
for granted, and some other character for granted with grant option (a
|
||||
poor man's enum, if you will). Votes on the particular characters are
|
||||
being taken. ;-) Since NULLs are stored specially, sparse pg_privilege
|
||||
rows wouldn't take extra space.
|
||||
|
||||
"Usage" privileges on types and other non-table objects could probably be
|
||||
lumped under "priselect" (purely for internal purposes).
|
||||
|
||||
For access we define system caches on these indexes:
|
||||
|
||||
index ( priobj, prigrantee, priselect )
|
||||
index ( priobj, prigrantee, prihierarchy )
|
||||
index ( priobj, prigrantee, priinsert )
|
||||
index ( priobj, prigrantee, priupdate )
|
||||
index ( priobj, prigrantee, pridelete )
|
||||
|
||||
These are the privileges you usually need quickly during query processing,
|
||||
the others are only needed during table creation. These indexes are not
|
||||
unique (more than one grantor can grant the same privilege), but AFAICS
|
||||
the syscache interface should work okay with this, since in normal
|
||||
operation we don't care who granted the privilege, only whether you have
|
||||
at least one.
|
||||
|
||||
How does that look?
|
||||
|
||||
--
|
||||
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M7738@postgresql.org Thu Apr 19 16:28:19 2001
|
||||
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M7738@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Received: from postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3JKSJL13468
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:28:19 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
Received: from postgresql.org.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with SMTP id f3JKRH336850;
|
||||
Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:27:17 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M7738@postgresql.org)
|
||||
Received: from wallace.ece.rice.edu (wallace.ece.rice.edu [128.42.12.154])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3JJbq325185
|
||||
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:37:52 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from reedstrm@rice.edu)
|
||||
Received: by rice.edu
|
||||
via sendmail from stdin
|
||||
id <m14qKFQ-000LGUC@wallace.ece.rice.edu> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
|
||||
for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:37:48 -0500 (CDT)
|
||||
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:37:48 -0500
|
||||
From: "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu>
|
||||
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
|
||||
cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] System catalog representation of access privileges
|
||||
Message-ID: <20010419143748.A3815@rice.edu>
|
||||
Mail-Followup-To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
|
||||
PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
|
||||
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0104182009040.762-100000@peter.localdomain>
|
||||
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||||
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
|
||||
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i
|
||||
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0104182009040.762-100000@peter.localdomain>; from peter_e@gmx.net on Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 05:58:12PM +0200
|
||||
Precedence: bulk
|
||||
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
|
||||
Status: RO
|
||||
|
||||
So, this will remove the relacl field from pg_class, making pg_class
|
||||
a fixed tuple-length table: that might actually speed access: there
|
||||
are shortcircuits in place to speed pointer math when this is true.
|
||||
|
||||
The implementation looks fine to me, as well. How are group privileges
|
||||
going to be handled with this system?
|
||||
|
||||
Ross
|
||||
|
||||
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 05:58:12PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
|
||||
> Oldtimers might recall the last thread about enhancements of the access
|
||||
> privilege system. See
|
||||
>
|
||||
> http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-hackers/2000-05/msg01220.html
|
||||
>
|
||||
> to catch up.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> It was more or less agreed that privilege descriptors should be split out
|
||||
> into a separate table for better flexibility and ease of processing. The
|
||||
> dispute was that the old proposal wanted to store only one privilege per
|
||||
> row. I have devised something more efficient:
|
||||
>
|
||||
> pg_privilege (
|
||||
|
||||
<snip>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
|
||||
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
|
||||
|
||||
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
|
||||
|
||||
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M7737@postgresql.org Thu Apr 19 16:22:45 2001
|
||||
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M7737@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Received: from postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3JKMiL12982
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:22:45 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
Received: from postgresql.org.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with SMTP id f3JKME335538;
|
||||
Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:22:14 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M7737@postgresql.org)
|
||||
Received: from corvette.mascari.com (dhcp065-024-161-045.columbus.rr.com [65.24.161.45])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3JKJK334679
|
||||
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:19:20 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from mascarm@mascari.com)
|
||||
Received: from mascari.com (ferrari.mascari.com [192.168.2.1])
|
||||
by corvette.mascari.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25251;
|
||||
Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:12:11 -0400
|
||||
Message-ID: <3ADF47F0.82BD3A63@mascari.com>
|
||||
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:17:52 -0400
|
||||
From: Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>
|
||||
Organization: Mascari Development Inc.
|
||||
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686)
|
||||
X-Accept-Language: en
|
||||
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||||
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
|
||||
cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] System catalog representation of access privileges
|
||||
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0104182009040.762-100000@peter.localdomain>
|
||||
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
|
||||
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
|
||||
Precedence: bulk
|
||||
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
|
||||
Status: RO
|
||||
|
||||
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
|
||||
|
||||
> I have devised something more efficient:
|
||||
>
|
||||
> pg_privilege (
|
||||
> priobj oid, -- oid of table, column, etc.
|
||||
> prigrantor oid, -- user who granted the privilege
|
||||
> prigrantee oid, -- user who owns the privilege
|
||||
>
|
||||
> priselect char, -- specific privileges follow...
|
||||
> prihierarchy char,
|
||||
> priinsert char,
|
||||
> priupdate char,
|
||||
> pridelete char,
|
||||
> prireferences char,
|
||||
> priunder char,
|
||||
> pritrigger char,
|
||||
> prirule char
|
||||
> /* obvious extension mechanism... */
|
||||
> )
|
||||
>
|
||||
> "Usage" privileges on types and other non-table objects could probably be
|
||||
> lumped under "priselect" (purely for internal purposes).
|
||||
>
|
||||
|
||||
That looks quite nice. I do have 3 quick questions though. First, I
|
||||
assume that the prigrantee could also be a group id? Or would this
|
||||
system table represent the effective privileges granted to user via
|
||||
groups? Second, one nice feature of Oracle is the ability to GRANT roles
|
||||
(our groups) to other roles. So I could do:
|
||||
|
||||
CREATE ROLE clerk;
|
||||
GRANT SELECT on mascarm.deposits TO clerk;
|
||||
GRANT UPDATE (mascarm.deposits.amount) ON mascarm.deposits TO clerk;
|
||||
|
||||
CREATE ROLE banker;
|
||||
GRANT clerk TO banker;
|
||||
|
||||
Would any part of your design prohibit such functionality in the future?
|
||||
|
||||
Finally, I'm wondering if "Usage" or "System" privileges should be
|
||||
another system table. For example, one day I would like to (as in
|
||||
Oracle):
|
||||
|
||||
GRANT SELECT ANY TABLE TO foo WITH ADMIN;
|
||||
GRANT CREATE PUBLIC SYNONYM TO foo;
|
||||
GRANT DROP ANY TABLE TO foo;
|
||||
|
||||
Presumably, in your design, the above would be represented by 3 records
|
||||
with something like the following values:
|
||||
|
||||
This would be a "SELECT ANY TABLE" privilege (w/Admin):
|
||||
|
||||
NULL, grantor_oid, grantee_oid, 'S', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, ...
|
||||
|
||||
This would be a "CREATE PUBLIC SYNONYM" privilege:
|
||||
|
||||
NULL, grantor_oid, grantee_oid, 'c', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, ...
|
||||
|
||||
That means that the system would need an index as:
|
||||
|
||||
index ( prigrantee, priselect )
|
||||
|
||||
While I'm not arguing it won't work, it just doesn't "seem" clean to
|
||||
shoe-horn the system privileges into the same table as the object
|
||||
privileges.
|
||||
|
||||
I've been wrong before though :-)
|
||||
|
||||
Mike Mascari
|
||||
mascarm@mascari.com
|
||||
|
||||
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
|
||||
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
|
||||
|
||||
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
|
||||
|
||||
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M7740@postgresql.org Thu Apr 19 17:17:08 2001
|
||||
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M7740@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Received: from postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3JLH6L23163
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:17:07 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
Received: from postgresql.org.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with SMTP id f3JLGL348132;
|
||||
Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:16:21 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M7740@postgresql.org)
|
||||
Received: from mailout04.sul.t-online.com (mailout04.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.18])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3JLDx347396
|
||||
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:13:59 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from peter_e@gmx.net)
|
||||
Received: from fwd03.sul.t-online.com
|
||||
by mailout04.sul.t-online.com with smtp
|
||||
id 14qLkP-0001K0-04; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:13:53 +0200
|
||||
Received: from peter.localdomain (520083510237-0001@[217.80.146.53]) by fmrl03.sul.t-online.com
|
||||
with esmtp id 14qLk8-0Y7RFAC; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:13:36 +0200
|
||||
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:24:51 +0200 (CEST)
|
||||
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
|
||||
To: Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>
|
||||
cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] System catalog representation of access privileges
|
||||
In-Reply-To: <3ADF47F0.82BD3A63@mascari.com>
|
||||
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0104192252550.762-100000@peter.localdomain>
|
||||
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||||
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
|
||||
X-Sender: 520083510237-0001@t-dialin.net
|
||||
Precedence: bulk
|
||||
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
|
||||
Status: RO
|
||||
|
||||
Mike Mascari writes:
|
||||
|
||||
> That looks quite nice. I do have 3 quick questions though. First, I
|
||||
> assume that the prigrantee could also be a group id?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes. It was also suggested making two different grantee columns for users
|
||||
and groups, but I'm not yet convinced of that. It's an option though.
|
||||
|
||||
> Second, one nice feature of Oracle is the ability to GRANT roles
|
||||
> (our groups) to other roles.
|
||||
|
||||
Roles are not part of this deal, although I agree that they would be nice
|
||||
to have eventually. I'm not sure yet whether role grants would get a
|
||||
different system table, but I'm leaning there.
|
||||
|
||||
> Would any part of your design prohibit such functionality in the future?
|
||||
|
||||
Not that I can see.
|
||||
|
||||
> Finally, I'm wondering if "Usage" or "System" privileges should be
|
||||
> another system table. For example, one day I would like to (as in
|
||||
> Oracle):
|
||||
>
|
||||
> GRANT SELECT ANY TABLE TO foo WITH ADMIN;
|
||||
|
||||
ANY TABLE probably implies "any table in this schema/database", no? In
|
||||
that case the grant record would refer to the oid of the schema/database.
|
||||
Is there any use distinguishing between ANY TABLE and ANY VIEW? That
|
||||
would make it a bit trickier.
|
||||
|
||||
> GRANT CREATE PUBLIC SYNONYM TO foo;
|
||||
|
||||
I'm not familiar with that above command.
|
||||
|
||||
> GRANT DROP ANY TABLE TO foo;
|
||||
|
||||
I'm not sold on a DROP privilege, but a CREATE privilege would be another
|
||||
column. I didn't include it here because it's not in SQL.
|
||||
|
||||
> While I'm not arguing it won't work, it just doesn't "seem" clean to
|
||||
> shoe-horn the system privileges into the same table as the object
|
||||
> privileges.
|
||||
|
||||
It would make sense to split privileges on tables from privileges on
|
||||
schemas/databases from privileges on, say, functions, etc. E.g.,
|
||||
|
||||
pg_privtable -- like proposed
|
||||
|
||||
pg_privschema (
|
||||
priobj oid, prigrantor oid, prigrantee oid,
|
||||
char pritarget, -- 't' = any table, 'v' = any view, ...
|
||||
char priselect,
|
||||
char priupdate,
|
||||
/* etc */
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
But this would mean that a check like "can I select from this table"
|
||||
would possibly require lookups in two tables. Not sure how much of a
|
||||
tradeoff that is, but the "shoehorn factor" would be lower.
|
||||
|
||||
Comments on this?
|
||||
|
||||
--
|
||||
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
|
||||
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
|
||||
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
|
||||
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
|
||||
|
||||
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M7741@postgresql.org Thu Apr 19 18:12:56 2001
|
||||
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M7741@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Received: from postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3JMCtL28468
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:12:55 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
Received: from postgresql.org.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with SMTP id f3JMCF359250;
|
||||
Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:12:15 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M7741@postgresql.org)
|
||||
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([216.151.103.158])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3JLrW355044
|
||||
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:53:32 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
|
||||
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
|
||||
by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3JLrQR22762;
|
||||
Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
|
||||
cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] System catalog representation of access privileges
|
||||
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0104182009040.762-100000@peter.localdomain>
|
||||
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0104182009040.762-100000@peter.localdomain>
|
||||
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
|
||||
message dated "Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:58:12 +0200"
|
||||
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:53:26 -0400
|
||||
Message-ID: <22759.987717206@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
||||
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
||||
Precedence: bulk
|
||||
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
|
||||
Status: RO
|
||||
|
||||
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
|
||||
> pg_privilege (
|
||||
> priobj oid, -- oid of table, column, function, etc.
|
||||
> prigrantor oid, -- user who granted the privilege
|
||||
> prigrantee oid, -- user who owns the privilege
|
||||
|
||||
What about groups? What about wildcards? We already allow
|
||||
"grant <priv> to PUBLIC (all)", and it would be nice to be able to do
|
||||
something like "grant <on everything I own> to joeblow"
|
||||
|
||||
> Since NULLs are stored specially, sparse pg_privilege
|
||||
> rows wouldn't take extra space.
|
||||
|
||||
Unless there get to be a very large number of privilege bits, it'd
|
||||
probably be better to handle these columns as NOT NULL, so that a fixed
|
||||
C struct record could be mapped onto the tuples. You'll notice that
|
||||
most of the other system tables are done that way.
|
||||
|
||||
Alternatively, since you really only need two bits per privilege,
|
||||
perhaps a pair of BIT (VARYING?) fields would be a more effective
|
||||
approach. BIT VARYING would have the nice property that adding a new
|
||||
privilege type doesn't force initdb.
|
||||
|
||||
> For access we define system caches on these indexes:
|
||||
|
||||
> index ( priobj, prigrantee, priselect )
|
||||
> index ( priobj, prigrantee, prihierarchy )
|
||||
> index ( priobj, prigrantee, priinsert )
|
||||
> index ( priobj, prigrantee, priupdate )
|
||||
> index ( priobj, prigrantee, pridelete )
|
||||
|
||||
Using the privilege bits as part of the index won't work if you intend
|
||||
to allow them to be null. Another objection is that this would end up
|
||||
caching multiple copies of the same tuple. A third is that you can't
|
||||
readily tell lack of an entry (implying you should use a default ACL
|
||||
setting, which might allow the access) from presence of an entry denying
|
||||
the access. A fourth is it doesn't work for groups or wildcards.
|
||||
|
||||
> These indexes are not
|
||||
> unique (more than one grantor can grant the same privilege), but AFAICS
|
||||
> the syscache interface should work okay with this,
|
||||
|
||||
Unfortunately not. The syscache stuff needs unique indexes, because it
|
||||
can only return one tuple for any given request.
|
||||
|
||||
I don't really believe this indexing scheme is workable. Need to think
|
||||
some more. Possibly the syscache mechanism will not do, and we need a
|
||||
specially indexed privilege cache instead.
|
||||
|
||||
regards, tom lane
|
||||
|
||||
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
|
||||
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
|
||||
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
|
||||
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
|
||||
|
||||
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M7743@postgresql.org Thu Apr 19 18:47:11 2001
|
||||
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M7743@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Received: from postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3JMlAL29690
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:47:10 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
Received: from postgresql.org.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with SMTP id f3JMkg366031;
|
||||
Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:46:42 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M7743@postgresql.org)
|
||||
Received: from corvette.mascari.com (dhcp065-024-161-045.columbus.rr.com [65.24.161.45])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3JMZf364328
|
||||
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:35:41 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from mascarm@mascari.com)
|
||||
Received: from mascari.com (ferrari.mascari.com [192.168.2.1])
|
||||
by corvette.mascari.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25665;
|
||||
Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:28:30 -0400
|
||||
Message-ID: <3ADF67E3.8367B467@mascari.com>
|
||||
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:34:11 -0400
|
||||
From: Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>
|
||||
Organization: Mascari Development Inc.
|
||||
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686)
|
||||
X-Accept-Language: en
|
||||
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||||
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
|
||||
cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] System catalog representation of access privileges
|
||||
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0104192252550.762-100000@peter.localdomain>
|
||||
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
|
||||
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
|
||||
Precedence: bulk
|
||||
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
|
||||
Status: RO
|
||||
|
||||
First, let me say that just because Oracle does it this way doesn't make
|
||||
it better but...
|
||||
|
||||
Oracle divides privileges into 2 categories:
|
||||
|
||||
Object privileges
|
||||
System privileges
|
||||
|
||||
The Object privileges are the ones you describe. And I agree
|
||||
fundamentally with your design. Although I would have (a) used a bitmask
|
||||
for the privileges and (b) have an additional bitmask which determines
|
||||
whether or not the Grantee could turn around and grant the same
|
||||
permission to someone else:
|
||||
|
||||
pg_objprivs {
|
||||
priobj oid,
|
||||
prigrantor oid,
|
||||
prigrantee oid,
|
||||
priprivileges int4,
|
||||
priadmin int4
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
Where priprivileges is a bitmask for:
|
||||
|
||||
0 ALTER - tables, sequences
|
||||
1 DELETE - tables, views
|
||||
2 EXECUTE - procedures, functions
|
||||
3 INDEX - tables
|
||||
4 INSERT - tables, views
|
||||
5 REFERENCES - tables
|
||||
6 SELECT - tables, views, sequences
|
||||
7 UPDATE - tables, views
|
||||
8 HIERARCHY - tables
|
||||
9 UNDER - tables
|
||||
|
||||
And the priadmin is a bitmask to determine whether or not the Grantee
|
||||
could grant the same privilege to another user. Since these are Object
|
||||
privileges, 32 bits should be enough (and also 640K RAM ;-)).
|
||||
|
||||
The System privileges are privileges granted to a user or role (a.k.a
|
||||
group) which are not associated with any particular object. This is one
|
||||
area where I think PostgreSQL needs a lot of work and thought,
|
||||
particularly with schemas coming down the road. Some example Oracle
|
||||
System privileges are:
|
||||
|
||||
Typical User Privileges:
|
||||
-----------------------
|
||||
|
||||
CREATE SESSION - Allows the user to connect
|
||||
CREATE SEQUENCE - Allows the user to create sequences in his schema
|
||||
CREATE SYNONYM - Allows the user to create private synonyms
|
||||
CREATE TABLE - Allows the user to create a table in his schema
|
||||
CREATE TRIGGER - Allows the user to create triggers on tables in his
|
||||
schema
|
||||
CREATE VIEW - Allows the user to create views in his schema
|
||||
|
||||
Typical Power-User Privileges:
|
||||
-----------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
ALTER ANY INDEX - Allows user to alter an index in *any* schema
|
||||
ALTER ANY PROCEDURE - Allows user to alter a procedure in *any* schema
|
||||
ALTER ANY TABLE - Allows user to alter a table in *any* schema
|
||||
...
|
||||
CREATE ANY TABLE - Allows user to create a table in *any* schema
|
||||
COMMENT ANY TABLE - Allows user to document any table in *any* schema
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
Typical DBA-Only Privileges:
|
||||
---------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
ALTER USER - Allows user to change password, quotas, etc. for *any* user
|
||||
CREATE USER - Allows user to create a new user
|
||||
DROP USER - Allows user to drop a new user
|
||||
GRANT ANY PRIVILEGE - Allows user to grant any privilege to any user
|
||||
ANALYZE ANY - Allows user to analyze any table in *any* schema
|
||||
|
||||
There are, in fact, many, many more System Privileges that Oracle
|
||||
defines. You may want someone to connect to a database and query one
|
||||
table and that's it. Or you may want someone to have no other abilities
|
||||
except to document the database design via the great COMMENT ON command
|
||||
;-), etc.
|
||||
|
||||
So for System Privileges, I would have something like:
|
||||
|
||||
pg_sysprivs {
|
||||
prigrantee oid,
|
||||
priprivilege oid,
|
||||
prigroup bool,
|
||||
priadmin bool
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
So each System privilege granted to a user (or group) would be its own
|
||||
record. The priprivilege would be the OID of one of the many System
|
||||
privileges defined in the same way types are defined, if prigroup is
|
||||
false. If prigroup is true, however, then priprivilege is not a System
|
||||
privilege, but a group id. And then PostgreSQL will have to examine the
|
||||
privileges recursively for that group. Of course, you might not want to
|
||||
allow for the GRANTing of group privileges to other groups initially,
|
||||
which simplifies the implementation tremendously. But its a neat (if not
|
||||
complicated) Oracle-ism.
|
||||
|
||||
Unfortunately, this means that the permission might require > 2 lookups.
|
||||
But these lookups are only if the previous lookup failed:
|
||||
|
||||
SELECT * FROM employees.foo;
|
||||
|
||||
1. Am I a member of the employees schema? Yes -> Done
|
||||
2. Have I been GRANTed the Object Privilege of:
|
||||
SELECT on employees.foo? Yes -> Done
|
||||
3. Have I been GRANTed the System Privilege of:
|
||||
SELECT ANY TABLE? Yes -> Done
|
||||
|
||||
So the number of lookups does potentially increase, but only for those
|
||||
users that have been granted access through greater and greater layers
|
||||
of authority.
|
||||
|
||||
I just think that each new feature added to PostgreSQL opens up a very
|
||||
large can of worms. Schemas are such a feature and the security system
|
||||
should be prepared for it.
|
||||
|
||||
FWIW,
|
||||
|
||||
Mike Mascari
|
||||
mascarm@mascari.com
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
|
||||
>
|
||||
>
|
||||
> It would make sense to split privileges on tables from privileges on
|
||||
> schemas/databases from privileges on, say, functions, etc. E.g.,
|
||||
>
|
||||
> pg_privtable -- like proposed
|
||||
>
|
||||
> pg_privschema (
|
||||
> priobj oid, prigrantor oid, prigrantee oid,
|
||||
> char pritarget, -- 't' = any table, 'v' = any view, ...
|
||||
> char priselect,
|
||||
> char priupdate,
|
||||
> /* etc */
|
||||
> )
|
||||
>
|
||||
> But this would mean that a check like "can I select from this table"
|
||||
> would possibly require lookups in two tables. Not sure how much of a
|
||||
> tradeoff that is, but the "shoehorn factor" would be lower.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Comments on this?
|
||||
>
|
||||
> --
|
||||
> Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
|
||||
|
||||
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
|
||||
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
|
||||
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
|
||||
|
||||
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M7759@postgresql.org Fri Apr 20 11:25:24 2001
|
||||
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M7759@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Received: from postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3KFPNs14733
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:25:23 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
Received: from postgresql.org.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with SMTP id f3KFNa389638;
|
||||
Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:23:36 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M7759@postgresql.org)
|
||||
Received: from mailout00.sul.t-online.com (mailout00.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.16])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3KFLL388804
|
||||
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:21:21 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from peter_e@gmx.net)
|
||||
Received: from fwd04.sul.t-online.com
|
||||
by mailout00.sul.t-online.com with smtp
|
||||
id 14qchk-0001xH-01; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:20:16 +0200
|
||||
Received: from peter.localdomain (520083510237-0001@[212.185.245.11]) by fmrl04.sul.t-online.com
|
||||
with esmtp id 14qchV-2L4flAC; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:20:01 +0200
|
||||
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:31:16 +0200 (CEST)
|
||||
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
|
||||
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
||||
cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] System catalog representation of access privileges
|
||||
In-Reply-To: <22759.987717206@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
||||
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0104201717010.758-100000@peter.localdomain>
|
||||
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||||
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
|
||||
X-Sender: 520083510237-0001@t-dialin.net
|
||||
Precedence: bulk
|
||||
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
|
||||
Status: RO
|
||||
|
||||
Tom Lane writes:
|
||||
|
||||
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
|
||||
> > pg_privilege (
|
||||
> > priobj oid, -- oid of table, column, function, etc.
|
||||
> > prigrantor oid, -- user who granted the privilege
|
||||
> > prigrantee oid, -- user who owns the privilege
|
||||
>
|
||||
> What about groups?
|
||||
|
||||
Either integrated into prigrantee or another column prigroupgrantee. One
|
||||
of these would always be zero or null, that's why I'm not sure if this
|
||||
isn't a waste of space.
|
||||
|
||||
> What about wildcards? We already allow
|
||||
> "grant <priv> to PUBLIC (all)", and it would be nice to be able to do
|
||||
> something like "grant <on everything I own> to joeblow"
|
||||
|
||||
Public would be prigrantee == 0. About <everything I own>, how is this
|
||||
defined? If it is "everything I own and will ever own" then I suppose
|
||||
priobj == 0. Although I admit I have never seen this kind of privilege
|
||||
before. It's probably better to set up a group for that.
|
||||
|
||||
> Alternatively, since you really only need two bits per privilege,
|
||||
> perhaps a pair of BIT (VARYING?) fields would be a more effective
|
||||
> approach. BIT VARYING would have the nice property that adding a new
|
||||
> privilege type doesn't force initdb.
|
||||
|
||||
This would be tricky to index, I think.
|
||||
|
||||
> I don't really believe this indexing scheme is workable. Need to think
|
||||
> some more. Possibly the syscache mechanism will not do, and we need a
|
||||
> specially indexed privilege cache instead.
|
||||
|
||||
Maybe just an index on (object, grantee) and walk through that with an
|
||||
index scan. This is done in some other places as well (triggers, I
|
||||
recall), but the performance is probably not too exciting.
|
||||
|
||||
However, last I looked at the syscache I figured that it would be
|
||||
perfectly capable of handling non-unique indexes if there only was an API
|
||||
to retrieve those values. Storing and finding the entries didn't seem to
|
||||
be the problem. Need to look there, probably.
|
||||
|
||||
--
|
||||
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
|
||||
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
|
||||
|
||||
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M7763@postgresql.org Fri Apr 20 13:05:45 2001
|
||||
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M7763@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Received: from west.navpoint.com (root@west.navpoint.com [207.106.42.13])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3KH5jE01810
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:05:45 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
Received: from postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by west.navpoint.com (8.11.3/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3KGc8129062
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:38:08 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
Received: from postgresql.org.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with SMTP id f3KGbY311283;
|
||||
Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:37:34 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M7763@postgresql.org)
|
||||
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([216.151.103.158])
|
||||
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3KGZp310688
|
||||
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:35:51 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
|
||||
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
|
||||
by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3KGZlR26837;
|
||||
Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:35:47 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
|
||||
cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
|
||||
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] System catalog representation of access privileges
|
||||
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0104201717010.758-100000@peter.localdomain>
|
||||
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0104201717010.758-100000@peter.localdomain>
|
||||
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
|
||||
message dated "Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:31:16 +0200"
|
||||
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:35:46 -0400
|
||||
Message-ID: <26834.987784546@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
||||
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
||||
Precedence: bulk
|
||||
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
|
||||
Status: RO
|
||||
|
||||
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
|
||||
>> Alternatively, since you really only need two bits per privilege,
|
||||
>> perhaps a pair of BIT (VARYING?) fields would be a more effective
|
||||
>> approach. BIT VARYING would have the nice property that adding a new
|
||||
>> privilege type doesn't force initdb.
|
||||
|
||||
> This would be tricky to index, I think.
|
||||
|
||||
True, but I don't believe that making the privilege value part of the
|
||||
index is useful.
|
||||
|
||||
> Maybe just an index on (object, grantee) and walk through that with an
|
||||
> index scan. This is done in some other places as well (triggers, I
|
||||
> recall), but the performance is probably not too exciting.
|
||||
|
||||
I agree, that'd be slower than we'd like. It needs to be cached somehow.
|
||||
|
||||
The major problem is that you'd need multiple index scans: after failing
|
||||
to find anything for (table, currentuser) you'd also need to try
|
||||
(table, 0) for PUBLIC and (table, G) for every group G that contains the
|
||||
current user. Not to mention the scan to find out which groups those are.
|
||||
|
||||
It gets rapidly worse if you want to allow any wildcarding on the object
|
||||
--- for example, if a privilege record attached to a schema can allow
|
||||
access to the tables therein, which I think should be possible. You'd
|
||||
have to repeat the above for each possible priobject that might relate
|
||||
to the target object.
|
||||
|
||||
I think this might be tolerable for getting the info in the first place,
|
||||
but the final results really need to be cached. That's why I was
|
||||
wondering about a special "privilege cache".
|
||||
|
||||
> However, last I looked at the syscache I figured that it would be
|
||||
> perfectly capable of handling non-unique indexes if there only was an API
|
||||
> to retrieve those values.
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, it's an API problem more than anything else. Invent away, if that
|
||||
seems like a needed component.
|
||||
|
||||
regards, tom lane
|
||||
|
||||
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
|
||||
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
|
||||
|
||||
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user