| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: row_security GUC, BYPASSRLS |
| Date: | 2015-09-18 13:32:16 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob6c4M8agA-C3RvjhQPK9nE_beSpJdSZv4y6zK1NiPabQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 03:18:21PM -0400, Adam Brightwell wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>> >>> There are use cases where row_security=force will be set in production
>> >>> environments, not only in testing.
>
>> > Noah's suggestion of using a per table attribute
>> > would work -- in fact I like the idea of that better than using the
>> > current GUC.
>>
>> FWIW, I also concur with a per table attribute for this purpose. In
>> fact, I think I really like the per-table flexibility over an
>> 'all-or-nothing' approach better too.
>
> Great. Robert, does that work for you, too?
Yes, that seems like a fine design from my point of view.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2015-09-18 14:00:16 | Re: Use pg_rewind when target timeline was switched |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-09-18 13:27:49 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add pages deleted from pending list to FSM |