Re: RLS related docs

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RLS related docs
Date: 2016-08-28 20:23:16
Message-ID: 9aafa1cb-469a-89e9-77c5-dff54a792706@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 05/30/2016 01:56 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 05/26/2016 12:26 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> On 25 May 2016 at 02:04, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Please see attached two proposed patches for the docs related to RLS:
>>>
>>> 1) Correction to pg_restore
>>> 2) Additional mentions that "COPY FROM" does not allow RLS to be enabled
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>
>> The pg_restore change looks good -- that was clearly wrong.
>>
>> Also, +1 for the new note in pg_dump.
>
> Great, thanks!
>
>> For COPY, I think perhaps it would be more logical to put the new note
>> immediately after the third note which describes the privileges
>> required, since it's kind of related, and then we can talk about the
>> RLS policies required, e.g.:
>>
>> If row-level security is enabled for the table, COPY table TO is
>> internally converted to COPY (SELECT * FROM table) TO, and the
>> relevant security policies are applied. Currently, COPY FROM is not
>> supported for tables with row-level security.
>
> This sounds better than what I had, so I will do it that way.

Apologies for the delay, but new patch attached. Assuming no more
comments, will commit this, backpatched to 9.5, in a day or two.

Thanks,

Joe

--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Attachment Content-Type Size
2016.08.28.00-RLS.docs.diff text/x-diff 2.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-08-28 21:45:38 Re: src/include/catalog/pg_foreign_table.h still refers genbki.sh
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-08-28 18:52:09 Re: PostgreSQL Version 10, missing minor version