Re: WITH CHECK and Column-Level Privileges

Noah,

* Noah Misch (noah(at)leadboat(dot)com) wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 05:16:40PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Alright, here's an updated patch which doesn't return any detail if no
> > values are visible or if only a partial key is visible.
>
> I browsed this patch. There's been no mention of foreign key constraints, but
> ri_ReportViolation() deserves similar hardening. If a user has only DELETE
> privilege on a PK table, FK violation messages should not leak the PK values.
> Modifications to the foreign side are less concerning, since the user will
> often know the attempted value; still, I would lock down both sides.

Ah, yes, good point.

> Please add a comment explaining the safety of each row-emitting message you
> haven't changed. For example, the one in refresh_by_match_merge() is safe
> because getting there requires MV ownership.

Sure.

> Instead of duplicating an entire ereport() to change whether you include an
> errdetail, use "condition ? errdetail(...) : 0".

Yeah, that's a bit nicer, will do.

Thanks!

Stephen