Re: when is RLS policy applied

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ted Toth <txtoth(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: when is RLS policy applied
Date: 2020-07-24 20:15:31
Message-ID: 575913.1595621731@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Ted Toth <txtoth(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm trying to understand when RLS select policy is applied so I created the
> follow to test but I don't understand why the query filter order is
> different for the 2 queries can anyone explain?

The core reason why not is that the ~~ operator isn't considered
leakproof. Plain text equality is leakproof, so it's safe to evaluate
ahead of the RLS filter --- and we'd rather do so because the plpgsql
function is assumed to be much more expensive than a built-in operator.

(~~ isn't leakproof because it can throw errors that expose information
about the pattern argument.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ted Toth 2020-07-24 20:40:58 Re: when is RLS policy applied
Previous Message Adrian Klaver 2020-07-24 20:04:56 Re: when is RLS policy applied