From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Damian Wolgast <damian(dot)wolgast(at)si-co(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Column Redaction |
Date: | 2014-10-10 11:05:39 |
Message-ID: | 20141010110539.GC28859@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com) wrote:
> On 10/10/2014 01:35 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >Regarding functions, 'leakproof' functions should be alright to allow,
> >though Heikki brings up a good point regarding binary search being
> >possible in a plpgsql function (or even directly by a client). Of
> >course, that approach also requires that you have a specific item in
> >mind.
>
> It doesn't require that you have a specific item in mind. Binary
> search is cheap, O(log n). It's easy to write a function to do a
> binary search on a single item, passed as argument, and then apply
> that to all rows:
>
> SELECT binary_search_reveal(cardnumber) FROM redacted_table;
Note that your binary_search_reveal wouldn't be marked as leakproof and
therefore this wouldn't be allowed. If this was allowed, you'd simply
do "raise notice" inside the function and call it a day.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-10-10 11:10:27 | Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.9 |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-10-10 11:01:10 | Re: Column Redaction |