| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi-tenancy with RLS |
| Date: | 2015-09-15 20:00:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20150915200052.GZ3685@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> > Also, we've faced issues in the past with making catalog changes due to fear
> > of breaking user scripts. Instead of doubling down on that with RLS on top
> > of catalog tables, would it be better to move the tables to a different
> > schema, make them accessible only to superusers and put views in pg_catalog?
>
> Uggh. -1 on that option from me.
Yeah, -1 from here too... That way leads to madness (note that we still
haven't managed to get rid of the pg_user, et al,
backwards-compatibility views from, uh, 8.2?).
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-09-15 20:19:04 | Re: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-15 19:57:14 | Re: Multi-tenancy with RLS |