Re: [v9.3] Row-Level Security

Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> writes:
> 2012/6/26 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> I think you're missing the point. Everyone who has commented on this
>> issue is in favor of having some check that causes the RLS predicate
>> *not to get added in the first place*.

> Here is a simple idea to avoid the second problematic scenario; that
> assign 0 as cost of has_superuser_privilege().

I am not sure which part of "this isn't safe" isn't getting through to
you. Aside from the scenarios Robert mentioned, consider the
possibility that f_malicious() is marked immutable, so that the planner
is likely to call it (to replace the call with its value) before it will
ever think about whether has_superuser_privilege should be called first.

Please just do what everybody is asking for, and create a bypass that
does not require fragile, easily-broken-by-future-changes assumptions
about what the planner will do with a WHERE clause.

regards, tom lane