From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CREATE POLICY and RETURNING |
Date: | 2014-10-17 11:46:10 |
Message-ID: | 20141017114610.GT28859@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Thom Brown (thom(at)linux(dot)com) wrote:
> On 17 October 2014 07:57, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 10/17/2014 02:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > I think you could probably make the DELETE policy control what can get
> > > deleted, but then have the SELECT policy further filter what gets
> > > returned.
> >
> > That seems like the worst of both worlds to me.
> >
> > Suddenly DELETE ... RETURNING might delete more rows than it reports a
> > resultset for. As well as being potentially dangerous for people using
> > it in wCTEs, etc, to me that's the most astonishing possible outcome of
> > all.
> >
> > I'd be much happier with even:
> >
> > ERROR: RETURNING not permitted with SELECT row-security policy
> >
> > than this.
>
> +1
>
> This suggestion is most in line with what I would expect to occur.
This was along the lines that I've been thinking for how to address this
also and I think it's the least surprising- but I want it controllable..
Thoughts on 'WITH RETURNING' / 'WITHOUT RETURNING' and what the default
should be?
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-10-17 11:52:18 | Re: TODO : Allow parallel cores to be used by vacuumdb [ WIP ] |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-10-17 11:45:09 | Re: CREATE POLICY and RETURNING |