Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: leaky views, yet again

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: leaky views, yet again
Date: 2010-09-02 02:57:08
Message-ID: AANLkTin7Nr_e6yObKjUcu+SCpxHXsAAUKip0dkN6Q=Hb@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2010/9/1 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
> Right now, it stands on a strict assumption that considers operators
> implemented with built-in functions are safe; it does not have no
> possibility to leak supplied arguments anywhere.
>
> Please note that this patch does not case about a case when
> a function inside a view and a function outside a view are
> distributed into same level and the later function has lower
> cost value.

Without making some attempt to address these two points, I don't see
the point of this patch.

Also, I believe we decided previously do this deoptimization only in
case the user requests it with CREATE SECURITY VIEW.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-09-02 02:58:13
Subject: Re: multibyte charater set in levenshtein function
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-09-02 00:57:43
Subject: Re: compiling with RELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE doesn't pass regression

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group