From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.5 release notes |
Date: | 2015-08-06 14:33:06 |
Message-ID: | 20150806143306.GI13687@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:05:54PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 11 June 2015 at 05:15, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > I have committed the first draft of the 9.5 release notes. You can view
> > the output here:
> >
> > http://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-9-5.html
> >
>
> I think it's worth mentioning
> dcbf5948e12aa60b4d6ab65b6445897dfc971e01, probably under "General
> Performance". It's an optimisation, and also a user-visible change to
> the way LEAKPROOF works. Perhaps something like
>
> Allow pushdown of non-leakproof functions into security barrier views
> if the function is not passed any arguments from the view.
>
> Previously only functions marked as LEAKPROOF could be pushed down
> into security barrier views.
Sorry, just looking at this now. Since RLS is new for 9.5, we wouldn't
mention the RLS change in the release notes because is is part of the
RLS new features, but we could mention the SB change --- the new text
would be:
Allow non-LEAKPROOF functions to be passed into security barrier views
if the function does not reference any table columns (Dean Rasheed)
However, this is usually a level of detail that I do not cover in the
release notes, so I need someone else to tell me it should be added.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-06 14:41:45 | Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-06 14:31:53 | Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 |