Re: [PATCH] Fix leaky VIEWs for RLS

KaiGai,

* KaiGai Kohei (kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com) wrote:
> Perhaps, pg_proc takes a new flag to represent it.

Without an actual well-formed approach for dealing with this which
requires it, it's far too soon to be asking for changes in the catalog.
Please stop suggesting individual maybe-this-would-help changes. We
need an actual solution which addresses all, or at least most, of the
concerns described, followed by a patch which implements the mechanics
of the solution. If the solution calls for an additional pg_proc field,
then the patch should include it.

Not sure if this would translate well, but asking for new flags to be
added to pg_proc right now is putting the cart before the horse. We
don't even know which functions we might mark as trusted or not yet, nor
is it even clear that adding such a flag would actually help. Adding a
flag to pg_proc is certainly nothing like a solution to this problem by
itself.

Thanks,

Stephen