| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Smith <gregsmithpgsql(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2013-12-16 14:43:33 |
| Message-ID: | 14580.1387205013@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> - Add an attribute to portals that stores the user ID at the time the
> portal was planned. Possibly extensibly; I'd be surprised if we won't
> need to associate other local info with a portal later.
This bit seems rather confused. A portal is a runnable query; we
do not support replanning midstream, and I don't think we support
changes of UID either.
I agree that the plan cache needs to support treating change of UID
as a reason to discard a cached plan, but that's nothing to do with
portals.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-16 14:44:03 | Re: "stuck spinlock" |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-12-16 14:36:51 | Re: "stuck spinlock" |