From: | "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Kohei KaiGai" <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
Cc: | "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>,"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Review of Row Level Security |
Date: | 2012-12-21 14:48:26 |
Message-ID: | 20121221144826.144650@gmx.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>> I don't think I like ALTER TABLE as a syntax for row level
>> security. How about using existing GRANT syntax but allowing a
>> WHERE clause? That seems more natural to me, and it would make
>> it easy to apply the same conditions to multiple types of
>> operations when desired, but use different expressions when
>> desired.
>
> It seems to me this syntax gives an impression that row-security
> feature is tightly combined with role-mechanism, even though it
> does not need. For example, we can set row-security policy of
> primary key is even/odd number, independent from working role.
Is there some high-level discussion of the concept of row level
security that operates independently of roles? I'm having a little
trouble getting my head around the idea, there is no README in the
patch, and the Wiki page on RLS hasn't been updated for two and a
half years and seems to be mainly discussing the possibility of
adding non-leaky views (which we now have). If it doesn't control
which roles have access to which rows, what does it do,
conceptually? (A URL to a page explaining this would be fine.)
-Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2012-12-21 15:14:19 | PL/PgSQL STRICT |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-12-21 14:48:22 | Re: Event Triggers: adding information |