| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Fix leaky VIEWs for RLS |
| Date: | 2010-06-04 04:57:13 |
| Message-ID: | 25135.1275627433@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> writes:
> (2010/06/04 11:55), Robert Haas wrote:
>> A (very) important part of this problem is determining which quals are
>> safe to push down.
>>
> At least, I don't have an idea to distinguish trusted functions from
> others without any additional hints, because we support variable kind
> of PL languages. :(
The proposal some time back in this thread was to trust all built-in
functions and no others. That's a bit simplistic, no doubt, but it
seems to me to largely solve the performance problem and to do so with
minimal effort. When and if you get to a solution that's committable
with respect to everything else, it might be time to think about
more flexible answers to that particular point.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gnanakumar | 2010-06-04 05:05:45 | Re: PITR Recovery Question |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-04 04:45:39 | Re: SET CONSTRAINTS todo |