Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables

Hello Pavel,

>> AFAICR, I had an objection on such new objects when you first proposed
>> something similar in October 2016.
>>
>> Namely, if session variables are not transactional, they cannot be used to
>> implement security related auditing features which were advertised as the
>> motivating use case: an the audit check may fail on a commit because of a
>> differed constraint, but the variable would keep its "okay" value unduly,
>> which would create a latent security issue, the audit check having failed
>> but the variable saying the opposite.
>>
>> So my point was that they should be transactional by default, although I
>> would be ok with an option for having a voluntary non transactional
>> version.
>>
>> Is this issue addressed somehow with this ?
>
>
> 1. I respect your opinion, but I dont agree with it. Oracle, db2 has
> similar or very similar feature non transactional, and I didnt find any
> requests to change it.

The argument of authority that "X does it like that" is not a valid answer
to my technical objection about security implications of this feature.

> 2. the prototype implementation was based on relclass items, and some
> transactional behave was possible. Peter E. had objections to this design
> and proposed own catalog table. I did it. Now, the transactional behave is
> harder to implement, although it is not impossible. This patch is not small
> now, so I didnt implement it.

"It is harder to implement" does not look like a valid answer either.

> I have a strong opinion so default behave have to be non transactional.

The fact that you have a "strong opinion" does not really answer my
objection. Moreover, I said that I would be ok with a non transactional
option, provided that a default transactional is available.

> Transactional variables significantly increases complexity of this patch,
> now is simple, because we can reset variable on drop variable command.
> Maybe I miss some simply implementation, but I spent on it more than few
> days. Still, any cooperation are welcome.

"It is simpler to implement this way" is not an answer either, especially
as you said that it could have been on point 2.

As I do not see any clear answer to my objection about security
implications, I understand that it is not addressed by this patch.

At the bare minimum, if this feature ever made it as is, I think that a
clear caveat must be included in the documentation about not using it for
any security-related purpose.

Also, I'm not really sure how useful such a non-transactional object can
be for other purposes: the user should take into account that the
transaction may fail and the value of the session variable be inconsistent
as a result. Sometimes it may not matter, but if it matters there is no
easy way around the fact.

--
Fabien.