Re: Partitioned tables vs GRANT

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Keith Fiske <keith(at)omniti(dot)com>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Partitioned tables vs GRANT
Date: 2017-04-08 00:41:28
Message-ID: 27428.1491612088@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Keith Fiske <keith(at)omniti(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>>> Apparently INSERT and SELECT on the parent partitioned table skip normal
>>> acl checks on the partitions. Is that intended behavior?

>> Yes, this matches normal inheritance behavior.

> Should that really be normal partitioning behavior though?

Yes, it should. Consider the alternatives:

1. Owner must remember to run around and grant permissions on all child
tables along with the parent.

2. The system silently(?) doesn't show you some rows that are supposed
to be visible when scanning the parent table.

If you want RLS, use RLS; this is not that, and is not a good substitute.

(We've been around on this topic before, btw. See the archives.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-04-08 00:56:29 Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-04-08 00:38:35 Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?