| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 11:01:10 |
| Message-ID: | 5437BC76.50401@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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;
Really, I don't see how this can possible be made to work. You can't
allow ad hoc processing of data, and still avoid revealing it to the user.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-10-10 11:05:39 | Re: Column Redaction |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-10-10 11:00:54 | Re: Column Redaction |