| From: | Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pierre Ducroquet <p(dot)psql(at)pinaraf(dot)info>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Row Level Security − leakproof-ness and performance implications |
| Date: | 2019-02-28 16:24:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAGB+Vh61Yo-H08YSF8WiTL28+Se_-PfCR-yO93BOojMjJ3OqyQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:14 AM Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Although, and Joe may hate me for saying this, I think only the
> > non-constants should be redacted to keep some level of usability for
> > regular SQL errors. Maybe system errors like the above should be
> > removed from client messages in general.
>
> I started down this path and it looked fragile. I guess if there is
> generally enough support to think this might be viable I could open up
> that door again, but I don't want to waste time if the approach is
> really a non-starter as stated upthread :-/.
>
The only non-starter for Tom was weakening leakproof, right? Can we
keep the suppression, and work on strengthening leakproof as a
separate activity?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-28 16:26:27 | Re: Index INCLUDE vs. Bitmap Index Scan |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2019-02-28 16:14:50 | Re: Row Level Security − leakproof-ness and performance implications |