Re: row security roadmap proposal

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Gregory Smith <gregsmithpgsql(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, jeff(dot)mccormick(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com
Subject: Re: row security roadmap proposal
Date: 2013-12-18 15:09:47
Message-ID: CA+TgmoadXJ-tJaAM1_vjMh7DiRZ17xn2KEw36NkfbmtyDusApQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Not sure I'd say required, but its certainly desirable to have
> updateable security barrier views in themselves. And it comes across
> to me as a cleaner and potentially more performant way of doing the
> security checks for RLS.

Yes, that's how I'm thinking of it. It's required in the sense that
if we don't do it as a separate patch, we'll need to fold many of
changes into the RLS patch, which IMV is not desirable. We'd end up
with more complexity and less functionality with no real upside that I
can see.

But I think we are basically saying the same thing.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2013-12-18 15:14:42 Re: row security roadmap proposal
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-12-18 15:06:38 Re: pg_rewarm status