| From: | Vydehi Ganti <rayudugs(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Clarification on RLS policy |
| Date: | 2025-04-25 13:28:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAMH-PzUBLFXsNPeovtg1iLf=HqOxzgTBn+6iToPNnOY0ds9b=A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Can i know if there is any scenario or ref document for the design you
suggested above?
On Fri, 25 Apr, 2025, 18:56 Dominique Devienne, <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 3:21 PM Vydehi Ganti <rayudugs(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > So I don't have a possibility to append where clause dynamically and can
> only check the boolean?
>
> Indeed. But given that you can run arbitrary SQL inside the function,
> even dynamic SQL,
> that ends up pretty much the same. And you have access to in-row
> values too, when calling the function.
> It's just a different design, that's all. --DD
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dominique Devienne | 2025-04-25 13:31:32 | Re: Clarification on RLS policy |
| Previous Message | Dominique Devienne | 2025-04-25 13:25:59 | Re: Clarification on RLS policy |