From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
Cc: | Aaron Burt <aaron(at)bavariati(dot)org>, pdxpug(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CASE eval issue |
Date: | 2011-10-20 02:40:14 |
Message-ID: | 1319078414.16256.35.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pdxpug |
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 19:24 -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> >> select id,
> >> case when has_column_privilege('mytable', 'secure_column', 'SELECT')
> >> then 'NA'
> >> else secure_column
> >> end as secure_column
> >> from mytable where id=12345;
> Yeah, I guess it does evaluate the column. (And yes, I meant to reverse the `then` and `else` clauses, sorry.)
It doesn't actually evaluate the column. CASE statements do force an
evaluation order, try:
SELECT CASE WHEN TRUE THEN 1/1 ELSE 1/0 END;
That succeeds, so obviously it's not evaluating the 1/0.
What's happening is that the permissions check is happening before the
query runs. PostgreSQL (at this point) has no way to know whether the
has_column_privilege will return TRUE or FALSE, or whether that will be
consistent with the declared permissions on the table.
> So you might need to use a function. Something like this (untested):
Yes, a function could work. Did you reverse the conditional again
though?
But to take a step back: why are you trying to solve the problem this
way? Would using a view over the allowed columns work?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
(once a PDXPUG member, always a PDXPUG member ;)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aaron Burt | 2011-10-20 19:56:58 | Re: CASE eval issue |
Previous Message | gabrielle | 2011-10-19 17:15:45 | Reminder: October meeting tomorrow! |