On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 07:43:15PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 5:15 PM Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's not a security feature: it's a usability feature.
> >
> > It's a usability feature because, when Postgres configuration is
> > managed by an outside mechanism (e.g., as in a Kubernetes
> > environment), ALTER SYSTEM currently allows a superuser to make
> > changes that appear to work, but may be discarded at some point in the
> > future when that outside mechanism updates the config. They may also
> > be represented incorrectly in a management dashboard if that dashboard
> > is based on the values in the outside configuration mechanism, rather
> > than values directly from Postgres.
> >
> > In this case, the end user with access to Postgres superuser
> > privileges presumably also has access to the outside configuration
> > mechanism. The goal is not to prevent them from changing settings, but
> > to offer guard rails that prevent them from changing settings in a way
> > that will be unstable (revertible by a future update) or confusing
> > (not showing up in a management UI).
> >
> > There are challenges here in making sure this is _not_ seen as a
> > security feature. But I do think the feature itself is sensible and
> > worthwhile.
>
> This is what I would have said if I'd tried to offer an explanation,
> except you said it better than I would have done.
I do think the docs need to clearly say this is not a security feature.
In fact, I wonder if the ALTER SYSTEM error message should explain the
GUC that is causing the failure.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Only you can decide what is important to you.