| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] A tackle to the leaky VIEWs for RLS |
| Date: | 2010-06-01 14:57:52 |
| Message-ID: | 3282.1275404272@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Heikki's point is still valid though. Consider if it's not a matter of
> filter ordering but rather that a filter is being pushed down inside a
> join. If the join is from the view then it would be unsafe to filter
> the rows before seeing which rows match the join... unless we can
> prove all the rows survive... It would really suck not to do this
> optimization too if for example you have a filter which filters all
> but a single row and then join against a large table...
Well, more generally, any restriction whatsoever that is placed on
the current planner behavior in the name of security will result in
catastrophic performance degradation for some queries. I agree with
Robert's nearby comments that we need to be selective about which
views we do this to and which functions we distrust.
CREATE SECURITY VIEW, anyone?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-01 14:58:51 | Re: dividing money by money |
| Previous Message | Andy Balholm | 2010-06-01 14:55:59 | Re: dividing money by money |