| From: | Christoph Heiss <christoph(dot)heiss(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, walther(at)technowledgy(dot)de, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add reloption for views to enable RLS |
| Date: | 2022-03-08 17:17:36 |
| Message-ID: | a70bafb8-feda-a21c-4bcc-e145a94d0e40@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/2/22 11:10, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> For my part, I find myself more and more convinced that
> "security_invoker" is the right name, because it matches the
> terminology used for functions, and in other database systems. I think
> the parallels between security invoker functions and security invoker
> views are quite strong.
>
> [..]
>
> What are other people's opinions?
>
Since there don't seem to be any more objections to "security_invoker" I
attached v10 renaming it again.
I've tried to better clarify the whole invoker vs. definer thing in the
CREATE VIEW documentation by explicitly mentioning that
"security_invoker=false" is _not_ the same as "security definer", based
on the earlier discussions.
This should hopefully avoid any implicit associations.
Thanks,
Christoph
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v10-0001-Add-new-boolean-reloption-security_invoker-to-vi.patch | text/x-patch | 32.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-08 17:19:34 | Re: New developer papercut - Makefile references INSTALL |
| Previous Message | Jeevan Ladhe | 2022-03-08 16:58:34 | Re: refactoring basebackup.c |