Re: WIP - xmlvalidate implementation from TODO list

ne 15. 3. 2026 v 13:58 odesílatel Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>
napsal:

> Hi Marcos
>
> On 15/03/2026 05:25, Marcos Magueta wrote:
> > I was thinking about the idea of managing the catalogs for read and
> > write, and I'm coming around to the idea of predefined roles after all.
> > Relying on conventional namespace-level ACLs for this turns out to be
> > impractical. With the normal ACL, a schema is object agnostic, so
> > there's no clean way to selectively restrict XML schema creation without
> > also affecting other objects in the sam enamespace. A simple scenario
> > like limiting who can write already gets messy. I did consider RLS on
> > the catalog, but that would be unprecedented for a pg_* table and would
> > break assumptions throughout the system, like pg_dump, dependency
> > tracking, syscache lookups... blah!
> >
> > That said, I'd like to hear from more people on this before committing
> > to an approach, assuming there's still legitimate interest in moving
> > this work forward.
>
>
> I guess we can assume that everything added to the official todo list is
> of interest for the community -- at least I do :).
>
>
> > On the potential CPU burn from validation: I think in practice it's
> > comparable to what you'd get from a complex index, heavy check
> > constraint, or trigger function. However, the nature of the input (and I
> > mean the XML schema definitions as plain text here), likely coming from
> > the application layer, sets a warrant for extra caution I guess.
> > Limiting the depth and size of both the schema and the document being
> > validated would reduce compatibility, but goes a long way in preventing
> > resource exhaustion, so it's a fairly trivial option to implement.
>
>
> I took the liberty to add Pavel to this thread. He has way more
> experience than me in this part of the code, and perhaps he can share
> his opinion on the predefined roles for XML schemas and his impressions
> on the patch as a whole.
>

I have no opinion about this now. I need to read both variants.

>
> Best, Jim
>