| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christoph Heiss <christoph(dot)heiss(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | walther(at)technowledgy(dot)de, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add reloption for views to enable RLS |
| Date: | 2022-03-02 19:07:12 |
| Message-ID: | 334bd4c7fe33a8609c0e7a5d490487086e18f9ac.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2022-03-02 at 10:10 +0000, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > I kept "check_permissions_owner" for now. Constantly changing it around
> > with each iteration doesn't really bring any value IMHO, I'd rather have
> > a final consensus on how to name the option and *then* change it for good.
>
> Yes indeed, it's annoying to keep changing the name between patch
> versions, so let's try to get a consensus now.
>
> For my part, I find myself more and more convinced that
> "security_invoker" is the right name [...]
>
> What are other people's opinions?
I am fine with "security_invoker". If there are other databases that use the
same term for the same thing, that is a strong argument.
I also agree that having "off" for the default setting is nicer.
My main worry is that other people misunderstand it in the same way that
Walter did, namely that this behaves just like security invoker functions.
But if the behavior is well documented, I think that is ok.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jille Timmermans | 2022-03-02 19:12:20 | Re: Support for grabbing multiple consecutive values with nextval() |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-03-02 18:22:31 | Re: Report checkpoint progress with pg_stat_progress_checkpoint (was: Report checkpoint progress in server logs) |