| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RLS open items are vague and unactionable |
| Date: | 2015-09-11 14:49:18 |
| Message-ID: | 2653.1441982958@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Yeah, we had a similar discussion regarding UPDATE USING policies and
> ON CONFLICT UPDATE clauses. I think the argument against filtering is
> that the rows returned would then be misleading about what was
> actually updated.
It seems to me that it would be a horribly bad idea to allow RLS to act
in such a way that rows could be updated and then not shown in RETURNING.
However, I don't see why UPDATE/DELETE with RETURNING couldn't be
restricted according to *both* the UPDATE and SELECT policies,
ie if there's RETURNING then you can't update a row you could not
have selected. Note this would be a nothing-happens result not a
throw-error result, else you still leak info about the existence of
the row.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2015-09-11 14:51:06 | Re: RLS open items are vague and unactionable |
| Previous Message | Syed, Rahila | 2015-09-11 14:43:27 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |