sw-postgres-mcp
概览
作者提供的说明(英文原文)
Safe-write Postgres MCP server with preview-before-execute writes and rollback safety.
PopNx MCP 的三大支柱
这三项永远不会合并成一个分数:意见、测量和人气是不同的东西。
- 用户评价i暂无评价评价功能将在后续阶段与账户功能一起开放
- 我们的基础检查i1 项中通过 1 项依据公开信息检查;尚未扫描代码
- 使用情况i非常新↓ 49/周 · ★ –
它能帮你做什么
我们还没有为它写通俗的介绍。下面是我们从注册中心读取到的事实。
- 连接方式: 在你的电脑上运行
- 传输方式: stdio
- 分类: 数据库与数据集
- 你需要填写:DATABASE_URL_READONLY, DATABASE_URL_WRITER
安装
选择你使用的 AI 应用,然后复制设置。
安装之前
- 基础检查:1 项中通过 1 项
- 在你的电脑上运行,拥有你的用户账户的权限(文件、网络、应用)。
- 需要你自己填写:
DATABASE_URL_READONLY,DATABASE_URL_WRITER
标为机密的值是你账户的钥匙。千万不要分享给别人,也不要粘贴到聊天里。
你需要
- npm已安装 Node.js(用于 npx 命令)
你用的是哪个应用?
在上方选择你的应用。我们会记住它,下次按钮会显示“安装到 …”。
打开 Claude Desktop → Settings → Developer → Edit Config,把下面的内容粘贴到 claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"sw-postgres": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"sw-postgres-mcp"
],
"env": {
"DATABASE_URL_READONLY": "your-value",
"DATABASE_URL_WRITER": "your-value"
}
}
}
}在终端中运行这条命令
claude mcp add sw-postgres --env DATABASE_URL_READONLY=your-value --env DATABASE_URL_WRITER=your-value -- npx -y sw-postgres-mcp运行前请先填写空着的值。
或者自己复制设置
粘贴到项目中的 .cursor/mcp.json,或 ~/.cursor/mcp.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"sw-postgres": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"sw-postgres-mcp"
],
"env": {
"DATABASE_URL_READONLY": "your-value",
"DATABASE_URL_WRITER": "your-value"
}
}
}
}浏览器会先询问是否打开应用,然后应用会显示设置并请你确认。密钥的值会留空,由你自己填写。
或者自己复制设置
粘贴到项目中的 .vscode/mcp.json
{
"servers": {
"sw-postgres": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"sw-postgres-mcp"
],
"env": {
"DATABASE_URL_READONLY": "your-value",
"DATABASE_URL_WRITER": "your-value"
}
}
}
}浏览器会先询问是否打开应用,然后应用会显示设置并请你确认。密钥的值会留空,由你自己填写。
这个服务器在你的电脑上运行,而 ChatGPT 只能连接互联网上的服务器。请选择其他应用。
你的选择通过 Cookie 保存在这台设备上,无需账户。
需要你填写的值
- Postgres connection string for the read-only role.
- Postgres connection string for the writer role.
这些设置是根据作者在注册中心的条目生成的。如果 README 的写法不同,请以 README 为准。
它能做什么
它在你的电脑上运行;安装后,工具列表会显示在你的 AI 应用中。
基础检查i
我们检查的是任何人都能看到的信息;我们没有阅读代码。不适用的检查项不计入总数。 · 检查于 2026年11月9日
- ✓ 通过
作者与仓库一致
注册名称已通过 GitHub 账户 jpka 验证,该账户拥有此仓库
- … 尚未检查
仍在维护
我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库
- … 尚未检查
有许可证
我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库
- – 不适用
端点有响应
它在你的电脑上运行,没有互联网端点
- – 不适用
使用 OAuth 登录
在你的电脑上运行,改用本地设置
- … 尚未检查
工具描述中没有隐藏指令
它在你的电脑上运行;我们只能读取互联网端点的工具列表
与“数据库与数据集”中的其他服务器比较i
- 星标数多于此分类中其他 1152 个服务器的 0%
- 发布到注册中心的时间比此分类中其他 1152 个服务器的 23% 更新
- 基础检查结果等于或优于此分类中其他 1152 个服务器的 100%
与注册中心里这个分类中所有活跃的服务器比较。只有当发布者拥有该仓库时,星标数才计入。
常见问题
sw-postgres-mcp 安全吗?
它在 1 项适用的基础检查中通过了 1 项。我们没有阅读代码。在添加密钥或令牌之前,请先看看这个服务器要求哪些权限,并使用只具备所需权限的密钥。
它需要哪些密钥或代码?
你需要填写:DATABASE_URL_READONLY, DATABASE_URL_WRITER
它在我的电脑上运行还是在云端?
它在你的电脑上运行。你的 AI 应用会在需要时启动它,数据不会经过作者的服务器(除非它自己调用在线服务)。
它还在维护吗?
GitHub 仓库最后更新于–,最新版本(0.3.1)于3个月前进入注册中心。
哪些应用可以使用它?
支持 MCP 的应用,例如 Claude Desktop、Claude Code、Cursor 和 VS Code。你的电脑上还需要有 Node.js。
有什么可以替代它?
同一分类中有:Supabase, MongoDB MCP Server, Elasticsearch MCP Server
替代选择
同一分类中其他作者的服务器,按星标数排序。
如何看卡片:↓ 每周下载量i★ GitHub 星标i三大支柱:评价 · 检查 · 使用情况i更新 = 最新版本发布到注册中心的时间i
作者的 README
打开 README
按原文从作者的仓库复制。PopNx MCP 没有审查或背书其内容。HTML、图片和脚本已被移除。链接会离开本站。
Safe-write Postgres MCP server
An agent can read and modify a database without being able to cause an unrecoverable accident. The differentiator is the safety layer, not the tool coverage: 8 MCP tools, 3 of them read-only, 4 write tools that only ever *preview* a change, and one execute_plan that commits a previewed change and nothing else.
Architecture
Claude (agent)
│ MCP stdio (tools/call) ▼ sw-postgres-mcp │ ├─ describe_schema / query / explain_plan ──► readonly pool ──► Postgres "readonly" role (SELECT only) │ ├─ delete_rows / insert_rows / update_rows / run_migration │ │ │ ▼ │ TwoPhaseWrite.preview() │ BEGIN → run the real statement → ROLLBACK │ DML (delete_rows/insert_rows/update_rows): capture exact RETURNING count + sample │ DDL (run_migration): no RETURNING to capture — reports 0 affected rows, a target │ table/schema extracted from the statement text, and always │ goes to "awaiting_approval" regardless of that row count │ └─► plan_token = sha256(statement + params) ("statementFingerprint") │ ├─ affected_rows ≤ approvalRequiredAboveRows → status: "previewed" │ ├─ affected_rows > approvalRequiredAboveRows → status: "awaiting_approval" │ └─ affected_rows > hardMaxRows → refused outright, no token issued │ (run_migration ignores both thresholds — every DDL preview is "awaiting_approval") │ ├─ execute_plan(plan_token, statement, params) ──► writer pool ──► Postgres "writer" role (DML + DDL) │ re-derives the fingerprint from what was passed back and refuses on any mismatch │ (STATEMENT_MISMATCH) or an affected-row-set that changed since preview (ROWSET_CHANGED) │ └─ every preview / approval / execution / rejection / refusal ──► mcp_audit.log (INSERT-only grant; UPDATE/DELETE/TRUNCATE revoked — see "Audit log" below)
an "awaiting_approval" plan surfaces at: localhost approval UI — http://127.0.0.1:4319/?token= (bound to 127.0.0.1, human-only; the token is printed once on stderr at startup and every route requires it as Authorization: Bearer or ?token= — see "Localhost approval UI" below) approve() / reject() are called directly on the shared TwoPhaseWrite instance — never exposed as an MCP tool the agent itself can reach
Two Postgres connection pools, each authenticated as a distinct role (see Threat model below): readonly for describe_schema/query/explain_plan, writer for the four write-preview tools and execute_plan. All 4 write tools — delete_rows, insert_rows, update_rows, run_migration — share one core, TwoPhaseWrite (src/writeCore.ts): every one of them previews inside a transaction that always rolls back, then requires a separate execute_plan call with the exact plan token to actually commit. There is no 5th write tool and no tool that skips the preview step — execute_plan is the only thing in this server that commits anything, and it only ever replays a statement that was already previewed. See Tools below for what each tool takes and returns, and Two-phase writes for the mechanics.
Threat model
The risk here is not SQL injection. delete_rows, insert_rows, and update_rows take structured arguments — table, where + parameterized params, a set object — and every value in those structured inputs goes through $n placeholders, never string concatenation (see update_rows's note on this in Tools). run_migration is different: DDL can't be parameterized the way DML values can, so it sends its raw agent-supplied statement directly to Postgres, the same way query/explain_plan already handle raw SQL — its safety comes not from parameterization but from always requiring human approval regardless of row count (see Tools), never from an $n-placeholder guarantee it doesn't have. The agent is the *author* of the SQL it sends, and it's a trusted-but-fallible author: it isn't trying to escape a quote, but it can absolutely produce a syntactically perfect, well-formed statement whose *scope* is the problem — DELETE FROM users WHERE active = false when 40,000 rows happen to match, or an UPDATE that silently drops its WHERE clause because the agent forgot one. That is the failure mode this project is built to survive, and three mechanisms carry the weight:
1. Preview-and-rollback, not `EXPLAIN`. EXPLAIN only ever gives the Postgres planner's *estimate* of how many rows a statement will touch, derived from table statistics that can be stale (especially right after a bulk load, before ANALYZE has run) or simply wrong for a correlated predicate the planner can't model well. An approval gate built on an estimate is a gate an agent (or ordinary data skew) can defeat by accident, not just by malice — a statement whose *true* affected-row count is 40,000 could still sail under a threshold if the planner guessed 80. So every write tool here instead runs the real statement inside BEGIN … ROLLBACK: the row count in the preview is the exact count a real execution just produced, not a projection. EXPLAIN still has a job — the standalone explain_plan tool offers it as a cheap, side-effect-free pre-check an agent can call before ever attempting a two-phase write — but it is never what the approval thresholds compare against.
2. Role separation, not parsing. readonly and writer are two distinct Postgres roles with distinct grants (docker/init/01-roles.sql): readonly has SELECT only (and CREATE explicitly revoked on its schema); writer has SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, gated further by this project's own write allowlist. A mutating statement submitted through the readonly pool is refused by Postgres itself with permission denied — verified against a live database in tests/roles.test.ts, not just asserted in code. The alternative — parsing or regex-matching SQL text to decide "is this a write?" — was deliberately not made the safety boundary: a parser can always be fooled by a form it wasn't written to catch (a CTE-wrapped WITH x AS (DELETE FROM ... RETURNING *) SELECT * FROM x, a mutating function call, a quoting edge case), and getting that wrong is a security hole, not a cosmetic bug. query/explain_plan do still reject non-SELECT statements and enforce the read allowlist by extracting table references from the statement text (src/tools/sqlGuard.ts) — but that is explicitly a second, defense-in-depth layer on top of the role grant, not the property itself. See DECISIONS.md for the full reasoning, including why a gap in that text-based allowlist parsing (which needed several hardening passes for quoted/Unicode-escaped identifiers) is a bounded allowlist-bypass risk rather than a "read tool executed a write" risk.
3. Plan tokens bind to a statement-hash fingerprint. A plan token by itself — a random, opaque ID — would only prove "some preview happened at some point." It says nothing about *which* statement was previewed, which means a token alone can't stop a bait-and-switch: swap in a wider WHERE clause, a different table, extra rows, and hand the same-looking token to execute_plan. So every token is bound to statementFingerprint(statement, params) — a SHA-256 hash of the trimmed statement text plus the JSON-serialized parameter list — computed at preview time and re-derived from whatever execute_plan is actually called with; any mismatch is refused as STATEMENT_MISMATCH before anything runs. This is what makes a human's approval in the localhost approval UI mean something: they're approving the *exact* statement and params they were shown, not a token that could later be replayed against different SQL. (A second, independent check — the rows-affected digest — separately catches the case where the *same* statement now matches a different row set because of concurrent activity; see Two-phase writes below.)
See Limitations for what this model deliberately does not cover, and DECISIONS.md for the full write-up of each of these three decisions plus the approval-mechanism spike (#1).
Quick start
docker compose up -d
npm install npm test npm run build
Point Claude Desktop at the server (see config.example.json and Claude Desktop section below). node dist/index.js also starts a localhost approval UI at http://127.0.0.1:4319/ alongside it — open the full URL (with ?token=...) the server prints once on stderr, since every route requires the per-session bearer token.
Configuration
Copy config.example.json to config.json (or set SW_POSTGRES_CONFIG to a custom path):
{
"database": { "readonlyConnectionString": "postgres://readonly:readonly_password@localhost:5432/mcp_test", "writerConnectionString": "postgres://writer:writer_password@localhost:5432/mcp_test" }, "allowlist": { "read": { "schemas": ["public"], "tables": [] }, "write": { "schemas": [], "tables": [] } } }
allowlist.read— schemas/tables the agent may see viadescribe_schema/query. If empty, all tables are readable. Iftablesis non-empty, only those fully-qualified tables are listed.allowlist.write— schemas/tables the agent may mutate. Defaults to deny: if bothschemasandtablesare empty, nothing is writable. Add entries explicitly.write.planTtlMs— how long aplan_tokenstays valid (default60000). Overridable withSW_PLAN_TTL_MS.write.statementTimeoutMs— per-connectionstatement_timeoutfor write executions (default10000). Overridable withSW_STATEMENT_TIMEOUT_MS.write.approvalRequiredAboveRows— a preview whose exact rollback-preview affected-row count is at or below this returns a tokenexecute_planwill honour immediately, same as today. Above it, the preview instead returnsstatus: "awaiting_approval"and the token is refused byexecute_planuntil a human approves it out-of-band (see Approval threshold and hard row cap below — approval is deliberately not an agent-facing MCP tool). Default100. Overridable withSW_APPROVAL_REQUIRED_ABOVE_ROWS.write.hardMaxRows— a second, higher, separate threshold. A preview whose exact affected-row count exceeds this is refused outright: no token is issued at all, and there is no approval path — the response is a flat structured error (HARD_MAX_ROWS_EXCEEDED), not something to escalate past. Default10000. Overridable withSW_HARD_MAX_ROWS. Must be>= write.approvalRequiredAboveRows;loadConfigthrows otherwise.approvalServer.enabled— whether the localhost approval UI starts alongside the MCP server (defaulttrue). Overridable withSW_APPROVAL_SERVER_ENABLED("true"/"false"). With it disabled, no plan can ever be approved, so any preview that would require approval (abovewrite.approvalRequiredAboveRows, or anyrun_migration) is refused outright with a structuredAPPROVAL_UNAVAILABLEerror — noplan_tokenis issued — rather than issuing a plan that would only blockexecute_planuntil expiry.approvalServer.port— port the localhost approval UI listens on, bound to127.0.0.1only (default4319). Overridable withSW_APPROVAL_SERVER_PORT.approvalServer.requireAuth— whether the localhost approval UI requires its per-session bearer token on every route, including the read-only GET ones (defaulttrue). Loopback binding plus the Host/Origin/Sec-Fetch-Site provenance checks stop a hostile bro
只显示了开头部分;其余内容请在仓库中阅读