| From: | Dan Lynch <pyramation(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: policies with security definer option for allowing inline optimization |
| Date: | 2021-04-06 20:16:16 |
| Message-ID: | CA+_muLF=DGpCOgn2nj7wUJhkh3cieDvuDg5zuHN1z8Xmmf5+kA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> > I suppose if the possibility exists that this could happen, perhaps using
> > RLS for selects is not quite "production ready"?
>
> I would not draw that conclusion.
>
>
This is great to hear! I'm betting a lot on RLS and have been investing a
lot into it.
> > Or perhaps if the RLS
> > qual/check is written well-enough, then maybe the performance hit
> wouldn't
> > be noticed?
>
> Yes.
>
Amazing to hear. Sounds like the path I'm on is good to go and will only
improve over time :)
Final question: do you think using procedures vs writing inline queries for
RLS quals/checks has a big difference in performance (assuming functions
are sql)?
Appreciate your info here!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhihong Yu | 2021-04-06 20:56:19 | Re: Parallel Full Hash Join |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-04-06 20:01:44 | Re: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data |