From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>,
 "ktm@rice.edu" <ktm@rice.edu>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>,
 Oleg Bartunov <obartunov@gmail.com>, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>,
 PgHacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [v9.4] row level security
In-reply-to: <52775604.9090306@2ndquadrant.com>
References: 
 <CADyhKSWkHrPqbRsFK0LjPMOOTsbKGWOuN75GqYJrxCDO3CKWtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130829142321.GA30496@aart.rice.edu>
 <CADyhKSUD7qdQeTndZ6mDpp05V6MnRBzQO1FmYBq1+Zp37oyRrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <WM!685df689dd4d8f8c5349d5ef7b8e285db1e99ea32d22ab5d35f3981c29eac19dbd725c9b5e0227def9d782de274d1354!@asav-3.01.com>
 <521F7DFB.8060602@agliodbs.com>
 <CADyhKSW_o2nVWFytdTY84DUXZSuZkD_EtY2d8wAjR18UruOXYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <WM!fb94ecb91cd381e69d8e4773d3810f48e4e0ef000525cc806c4ee509f215ce1a39c8c2a1c3ffde72ba2ddb1a07ebcdc9!@asav-2.01.com>
 <5220D832.7090104@agliodbs.com> <20130830192729.GO2706@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <16798.1377891794@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoZYv_me1iB6iDRA_oO-o9xkxXYqr-0UtwK5itpZbDsqYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1398.1378305956@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoYTf+4RUOW8stVz1RE+3TD+QR5TNKzYuFDCehSkieL5OQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1543.1378306249@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+TgmobRiYj8NC!
 b4Lra5-MzvjnVKz6OrYSsn-Z04YJGsmiQAsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2620.1378308159@sss.pgh.pa.us> <52775604.9090306@2ndquadrant.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
 message dated "Mon, 04 Nov 2013 16:08:36 +0800"
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:37:19 -0500
Message-ID: <11101.1383575839@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 09/04/2013 11:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> AFAICT, to deal with update/delete the RLS patch needs to constrain order
>> of qual application without the crutch of having a separate level of
>> subquery; and it's that behavior that I have zero confidence in, either
>> as to whether it works as submitted or as to our odds of not breaking it
>> in the future.

> Wouldn't CASE do that job, albeit in a somewhat ugly manner, and also
> protect against malicious RLS functions?

You mean wrap all the query quals in a CASE?  Sure, if you didn't mind
totally destroying any optimization possibilities.  If you did that,
every table scan would become a seqscan and every join a nestloop.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers