| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Noah Misch <noah(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kohei Kaigai <Kohei(dot)Kaigai(at)emea(dot)nec(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [v9.2] Fix leaky-view problem, part 1 |
| Date: | 2011-07-02 19:46:04 |
| Message-ID: | 17596.1309635964@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
>> BTW, regarding to the statement support for security barrier views,
>> the following syntax might be more consistent with existing ones:
>> CREATE VIEW view_name WITH ( param [=value]) AS query ... ;
>> rather than
>> CREATE SECURITY VIEW view_name AS query ...;
>>
>> Any comments?
> I think I mildly prefer CREATE SECURITY VIEW to the parameter syntax
> in this case, but I don't hate the other one.
The WITH idea seems a bit more future-proof; in particular it would
easily accommodate specifying a security type, if we decide we need
various levels of leak-proof-ness.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-02 20:47:52 | Re: plpython thinks it's hooked into "make distprep", but not so much |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-02 19:45:03 | Re: Deriving release notes from git commit messages |