Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Kohei Kaigai <Kohei(dot)Kaigai(at)emea(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem
Date: 2011-09-26 00:50:42
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
>> I'm a bit nervous about storing security_barrier in the RTE.  What
>> happens to stored rules if the security_barrier option gets change
>> later?
> The rte->security_barrier is evaluated when a query referencing security
> views get expanded. So, rte->security_barrier is not stored to catalog.

I think it is.  If you create a view that involves an RTE, the node
tree is going to get stored in pg_rewrite.ev_action.  And it's going
to include the security_barrier attribute, because you added outfuncs
support for it...


Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-09-26 01:07:14
Subject: contrib/sepgsql regression tests are a no-go
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-09-26 00:46:22
Subject: Re: index-only scans

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group