Re: security hook on table creation

On Sep 30, 2010, at 9:01 PM, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
> (2010/10/01 3:09), Robert Haas wrote:
>> 2010/9/29 KaiGai Kohei<kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>>> In addition, I want to give these entrypoints its name which
>>> represents an appropriate purpose of the hook, rather than
>>> a uniformed one.
>>
>> It sounds like you're proposing to create a vast number of hooks
>> rather than just one. If we have ~20 object types in the system,
>> that's 40 hooks just for create and drop, and then many more to handle
>> comment, alter (perhaps in various flavors), etc. I'm pretty
>> unexcited about that. The main hook function can always dispatch
>> internally if it so desires, but I don't see any benefit to forcing
>> people to write the code that way.
>>
> What I proposed is to create just one hook and wrapper functions
> with appropriate name; that calls the hook with appropriate parameters,
> such as SearchSysCache1, 2, 3 and 4.

Seems like you'd end up creating a lot of macros that were only used once.

> BTW, as an aside, the SearchSysCacheX() interface also inspired me.
> If the hook function can deliver a few Datum values depending on object
> types and event types, it may allows the main hook to handle most of
> security checks, even if we need to add various flavors.

Good idea. Let's leave that out for the first version of this, though.

...Robert