I know I can run this:
grant select on all tables in schema whatever to "my_dev_group";
but the way I've built our CI system - we use lots of different schemas, so the schema is only known at the time of running the tests - not when the script is written. Ie we run the same script against lots of different test schemas and we set the schema name at the start...
so I am trying to achieve the equivalent of the above grant statement - but to operate on the current schema - without any success.
ie all of these were spectacularly unsuccessful
grant select on all tables in schema current to "my_dev_group";
grant select on all tables in schema current_schema() to "my_dev_group";
grant select on all tables to "my_dev_group";
is it possible to do without going into the world of executing dynamic sql, which I'd prefer not to
SQL doesn't have a notion of a “current schema”. Consequently, there is no syntax to change the permissions of all tables in the current schema.
You could loop through all schemas in the search_path or all schemas in the database and run a GRANT statement for each one. Make sure to skip system schemas like information_schema and pg_catalog.
Alternatively, you could use the current_schema() function to retrieve the first existing schema on your search_path and change permissions for that schema.
Related
Using Vault I'm trying to create an on-demand temporary read-only users in a Postgres 11.8 instance.
I will have:
1000+ databases (one per customer aka tenant)
Each database has a public and reporting schema.
So I'm trying to find a way to grant this read-only user access to every database, and on all tables in both schemas.
While I came up with the following snippet:
-- Create a new user
CREATE ROLE "my-readonly-user" WITH LOGIN PASSWORD 'test123';
-- Grant access to the two schema's we have
GRANT USAGE ON SCHEMA public TO "my-readonly-user";
GRANT USAGE ON SCHEMA reporting TO "my-readonly-user";
-- Grant access to all tables in our two schema's
GRANT SELECT ON ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA public TO "my-readonly-user";
GRANT SELECT ON ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA reporting TO "my-readonly-user";
-- Grant access to sequences
GRANT USAGE, SELECT ON ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA public TO "my-readonly-user";
GRANT USAGE, SELECT ON ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA reporting TO "my-readonly-user";
-- Grant access to future tables
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA public GRANT SELECT ON TABLES TO "my-readonly-user";
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA reporting GRANT SELECT ON TABLES TO "my-readonly-user";
It will only apply to 1 single database (the current one). If I login with the readonly user and switch to some databases, I don't see any tables except in the first database.
A cluster holds many databases, which hold many schemas. Schemas (even
with the same name) in different DBs are unrelated. Granting
privileges for a schema only applies to this particular schema in the
current DB (the current DB at the time of granting).
https://stackoverflow.com/a/24923877/1409047
Because of that limitation, it seems to make the grant snippet from above more complex. Should I iterate all my databases somehow and run the snippet? How would I do the database switch? Is it even possible in plain SQL (as required by Vault's API)? Anyone did this before?
Note: doing the same in MySQL only requires 2 lines of code, using wildcards *.* which is not supported in Postgres afaik:
CREATE USER '{{name}}'#'10.0.0.0/255.0.0.0' IDENTIFIED BY '{{password}}';
GRANT SELECT, SHOW DATABASES, SHOW VIEW ON *.* TO '{{name}}'#'10.0.0.0/255.0.0.0';
It is a deliberate design decision that an SQL statement cannot affect objects in a database different from the one that you are connected to.
Yes, you will have to iterate through all databases in your cluster and run your script there.
Note that there is a mistake in your script: you shouldn't grant a read-only user USAGE on sequences, else they can modify the sequence value. SELECT is fine.
What I would do is create a read_only_group (with NOLOGIN) and grant all these permissions to that role. Then, when there is a request for a read-only user, create a user and add it to that group, so that it inherits the group privileges. Don't grant anything to the user itself, so that you can easily DROP it when it is no longer needed.
If you want to grant readonly access to an user using only a Postgres script, you can do that:
CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS dblink;
DO
$$
DECLARE nome_banco TEXT;
DECLARE template_conexao TEXT;
DECLARE string_conexao TEXT;
DECLARE nome_usuario TEXT;
BEGIN
template_conexao = 'user=foo password=bar dbname=';
nome_usuario = 'baz';
FOR nome_banco IN
SELECT datname FROM pg_database
WHERE datistemplate = false
LOOP
string_conexao = template_conexao || nome_banco;
perform dblink_exec(string_conexao, 'GRANT CONNECT ON DATABASE "' || nome_banco || '" TO ' || nome_usuario);
perform dblink_exec(string_conexao, 'GRANT SELECT ON ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA public TO ' || nome_usuario);
END LOOP;
END
$$
--DROP EXTENSION IF EXISTS dblink;
It connects to each database, and executes the script; it can be easily adapted for other situations where you need to execute a database-local command on all of the databases.
Remember that, for security purposes, after executing the script above, you should drop the dblink extension created by the script above, unless, of course, you are already using the extension for other purposes.
I have a schema called lake and when I run
select schema_name
from information_schema.schemata
lake is not in the results. I found out about this when an Amazon utility script started failing. All other schemas (including any I create now) show up there. I thought all schemas were supposed to be there?
All schemas are visible to superusers. For other users it depends on who created the schema and whether you have permissions on it.
Try altering the schema owner to be the same as the other schemas you can see. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift/latest/dg/r_ALTER_SCHEMA.html
alter schema us_sales
owner to dwuser;
I have a bit of a funny situation in Amazon Redshift where I have a user X who has grant select on all tables in schema public, but once a new table is created, this grant doesn't seem to apply to the new table. Is this normal behaviour? If yes, how does one deal with it such that the schema level grants are maintained. Thank you.
Executing the following command as super user (master):
alter default privileges
for user staging_user
in schema staging
grant select on tables
to reporting_user;
will allow reporting_user to select data from all future tables created by staging_user in schema staging.
In Redshift tables and views do not automatically inherit the permissions of their parent schema. Your newly created tables are only accessible to the user who created them, and the superuser.
In a recent patch to Redshift a new feature to grant default privileges was implemented that addresses this issue.
Alter Default Privileges
The following code snippet will grant select privileges only for all future tables in the sales schema to the sales_admin group. If you want this to apply to existing tables in a schema you will need to combine it with a second grant statement.
alter default privileges in schema sales grant select on tables to group sales_admin;
This is a normal behavior. Only the object owner/superuser have permission to use the object by default.
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift/latest/dg/r_Privileges.html
You can add grant command to your create table statement and grant needed privileges for the user.
When we first spotted new tables not appearing in our reporting tool, I discovered a quick workaround is to re-execute the following SQL statement for the groups/users impacted:
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA <SCHEMANAME> GRANT SELECT ON TABLES TO GROUP <USER/GROUPNAME>;
Using PostgreSQL 9.0, I have a group role called "staff" and would like to grant all (or certain) privileges to this role on tables in a particular schema. None of the following work
GRANT ALL ON SCHEMA foo TO staff;
GRANT ALL ON DATABASE mydb TO staff;
Members of "staff" are still unable to SELECT or UPDATE on the individual tables in the schema "foo" or (in the case of the second command) to any table in the database unless I grant all on that specific table.
What can I do make my and my users' lives easier?
Update: Figured it out with the help of a similar question on serverfault.com.
GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA foo TO staff;
You found the shorthand to set privileges for all existing tables in the given schema. The manual clarifies:
(but note that ALL TABLES is considered to include views and foreign tables).
Bold emphasis mine. serial columns are implemented with nextval() on a sequence as column default and, quoting the manual:
For sequences, this privilege allows the use of the currval and nextval functions.
So if there are serial columns, you'll also want to grant USAGE (or ALL PRIVILEGES) on sequences
GRANT USAGE ON ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA foo TO mygrp;
Note: IDENTITY columns in Postgres 10 or later use implicit sequences that don't require additional privileges. (Consider upgrading serial columns.)
What about new objects?
You'll also be interested in DEFAULT PRIVILEGES for users or schemas:
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA foo GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON TABLES TO staff;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA foo GRANT USAGE ON SEQUENCES TO staff;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA foo REVOKE ...;
This sets privileges for objects created in the future automatically - but not for pre-existing objects.
Default privileges are only applied to objects created by the targeted user (FOR ROLE my_creating_role). If that clause is omitted, it defaults to the current user executing ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES. To be explicit:
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES FOR ROLE my_creating_role IN SCHEMA foo GRANT ...;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES FOR ROLE my_creating_role IN SCHEMA foo REVOKE ...;
Note also that all versions of pgAdmin III have a subtle bug and display default privileges in the SQL pane, even if they do not apply to the current role. Be sure to adjust the FOR ROLE clause manually when copying the SQL script.
My answer is similar to this one on ServerFault.com.
To Be Conservative
If you want to be more conservative than granting "all privileges", you might want to try something more like these.
GRANT SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE ON ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA public TO some_user_;
GRANT EXECUTE ON ALL FUNCTIONS IN SCHEMA public TO some_user_;
The use of public there refers to the name of the default schema created for every new database/catalog. Replace with your own name if you created a schema.
Access to the Schema
To access a schema at all, for any action, the user must be granted "usage" rights. Before a user can select, insert, update, or delete, a user must first be granted "usage" to a schema.
You will not notice this requirement when first using Postgres. By default every database has a first schema named public. And every user by default has been automatically been granted "usage" rights to that particular schema. When adding additional schema, then you must explicitly grant usage rights.
GRANT USAGE ON SCHEMA some_schema_ TO some_user_ ;
Excerpt from the Postgres doc:
For schemas, allows access to objects contained in the specified schema (assuming that the objects' own privilege requirements are also met). Essentially this allows the grantee to "look up" objects within the schema. Without this permission, it is still possible to see the object names, e.g. by querying the system tables. Also, after revoking this permission, existing backends might have statements that have previously performed this lookup, so this is not a completely secure way to prevent object access.
For more discussion see the Question, What GRANT USAGE ON SCHEMA exactly do?. Pay special attention to the Answer by Postgres expert Craig Ringer.
Existing Objects Versus Future
These commands only affect existing objects. Tables and such you create in the future get default privileges until you re-execute those lines above. See the other answer by Erwin Brandstetter to change the defaults thereby affecting future objects.
We like our production environment with a restricted/unchangable schema -- the development side can be owned by the developers and changed as they like -- and we like to vet changes as they are promoted.
I'm wondering if this may be a solution to making that happen:
postgres% create proddb with owner=postgres;
unixside% pg_restore --dbname=devdb [--schema-only] --no-owner proddb
/* grants to users on schema objects appear to remain intact */
/* here's the magic, I hope... */
postgres% revoke create on schema public from public;
postgres% grant usage on schema public to produser(s);
Some testing seems to show that a user in this new proddb can interact with tables normally (with appropriate grants) and cannot alter the schema (alter table, create table, drop table, etc). But I'm paranoid and very new to Postgres, so...
Q: Is this correct?
Q: Am I missing anything?
Thanks muchly.
Yes, that is correct. The only addition is that the owner of a table can always delete or modify it. So it may not work if you have existing tables in the schema.
Discovered a missing element: sequences.
The user was finding errors in his scripts; similar errors appeared in the logs:
ERROR: permission denied for sequence <sequence>
The production schema showed that although sequences were created, they were owned by postgres and no explicit grants were given to the users. As per the GRANT documentation:
Granting permission on a table does not automatically extend permissions to any sequences used by the table, including sequences tied to SERIAL columns. Permissions on sequence must be set separately.
Our fix (verbose for this demonstration) was to find all sequences:
unixside% pg_dump --schema-only proddb > proddb.schema
unixside% grep -i 'create sequence' proddb.schema
...and apply appropriate grants (select to prevent table scans, update to prevent the above errors):
postgres% grant select,update on <sequence> to produser(s);
So far, the user says it's working and errors to the log have stopped...
I forget what version PostgreSQL added the syntax, but one of the easiest ways to administer permissions in PostgreSQL is through the "GRANT foo, priv ON ALL something IN SCHEMA" syntax.
BEGIN;
GRANT SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE ON ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA my_schema TO my_role;
GRANT USAGE ON ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA my_schema TO my_role;
GRANT EXECUTE ON ALL FUNCTIONS IN SCHEMA my_schema TO my_role;
COMMIT;
Very handy for making sure that permissions are always set correctly.
The EXECUTE for FUNCTIONS may seem spooky, but shouldn't be unless your functions were created with the SECURITY DEFINER attribute (and if you are using SECURITY DEFINER, you'd better be cautious since you're playing around with the PostgreSQL version of a "setuid" function). If you space out your TABLES across different SCHEMAS based on the expected permissions, then this becomes a pretty handy convention when used with the search_path variable.
ALTER ROLE my_role SET search_path = my_schema, auth_schema, public;
-- Avoid using the public schema (pretty please)
Where auth_schema has a collection of tables that my_role shouldn't have direct read or write privileges on. Assigning privs to GROUPS is also useful.
Here are some relevant docs:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-grant.html
Don't forget you can use "\h GRANT" in psql to easily figure out the syntax or remember what can be done on all objects in a schema (search for "IN SCHEMA").