| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [v9.4] row level security |
| Date: | 2013-11-04 15:17:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZS46fGTHCMo1FpNiBYDU7Wrx7R8PL+48Xc7UcVCsuaUA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 09/04/2013 11:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> AFAICT, to deal with update/delete the RLS patch needs to constrain order
>>> of qual application without the crutch of having a separate level of
>>> subquery; and it's that behavior that I have zero confidence in, either
>>> as to whether it works as submitted or as to our odds of not breaking it
>>> in the future.
>
>> Wouldn't CASE do that job, albeit in a somewhat ugly manner, and also
>> protect against malicious RLS functions?
>
> You mean wrap all the query quals in a CASE? Sure, if you didn't mind
> totally destroying any optimization possibilities. If you did that,
> every table scan would become a seqscan and every join a nestloop.
I'd still like to here what's wrong with what I said here:
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-11-04 15:41:51 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #8573: int4range memory consumption |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-04 15:05:54 | Re: Something fishy happening on frogmouth |