From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
cc: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: revamp row-security tracking
In-reply-to: <Z7N3fIDbIGIzGByR@nathan>
References: <Zz91RagtQg2s9497@nathan>
 <CAEZATCUDuzvQ8THEHNRRkg7Nia7OzZBA5PzwCm_c70M82pCnPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Z03hjW3U9yERkDdG@nathan> <Z7N3fIDbIGIzGByR@nathan>
Comments: In-reply-to Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:53:00 -0600"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <853592.1739815709.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 13:08:29 -0500
Message-ID: <853593.1739815709@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/853593.1739815709%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> Given there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of interest in this, I plan to
> mark it as Withdrawn soon.

I think you're being too impatient.  It's still an interesting
topic, it just needs more thought to get to something committable.

I find this has-row-security marking problem to be comparable
to the has-sublinks marking problem.  We've had tons of
bugs-of-omission with that too, and the present code feels
ugly and not any less prone to omissions than it ever was.

I wonder whether considering both problems together would yield any
insights, following Polya's dictum that "the more general problem may
be easier to solve".

One straightforward idea is to just not do the marking at all,
but rather require places that want to know these properties
to do a fresh search of the query tree when they want to know
it.  That obviously has performance questions to answer, but
it's easier to give answers to performance questions than
"is this correct" questions.

			regards, tom lane