Re: Multi-tenancy with RLS

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2015-10-09 03:04:46
Message-ID: 20151009030446.GF3685@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> We've got one reloption for views already - security_barrier. Maybe
> we could have another one that effectively changes a particular view
> from "security definer" as it is today to "security invoker".

As I recall, there was a previous suggestion (honestly, I thought it was
your idea) to have a reloption which made views "fully" security
definer, in that functions in the view definition would run as the view
owner instead of the view invoker.

I liked that idea, though we would need to have a function to say "who
is the 'outer' user?" (CURRENT_USER always being the owner with the
above described reloption).

I'm less sure about the idea of having a view which runs entirely as the
view invoker, but I'm not against it either.

I do think both of those are independent of supporting policies for
views and foreign tables though, which we'd want even if we had
reloptions for the above ideas.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2015-10-09 03:26:49 Re: [BUGS] BUG #13611: test_postmaster_connection failed (Windows, listen_addresses = '0.0.0.0' or '::')
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2015-10-09 03:00:30 Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual