| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE POLICY and RETURNING |
| Date: | 2014-10-16 05:44:02 |
| Message-ID: | 543F5B22.40401@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/16/2014 12:25 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While I was checking the behavior of RLS, I found that the policy for SELECT
> doesn't seem to be applied to RETURNING. Is this intentional?
This is why I was opposed to having a "SELECT" policy at all. It should
be "VISIBLE", "INSERT", "UPDATE", "DELETE".
I say "VISIBLE" instead of "READ" because I don't think the rows
affected by an UPDATE or DELETE should be affected by whether or not
they have a RETURNING clause. That's IMO nonsensical.and violates the
usual expectations about which clauses can have filtering effects.
So the read-filtering policy should apply to all statements. Not just
SELECT.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rushabh Lathia | 2014-10-16 05:46:54 | Re: [Segmentation fault] pg_dump binary-upgrade fail for type without element |
| Previous Message | Rushabh Lathia | 2014-10-16 05:39:35 | [Segmentation fault] pg_dump binary-upgrade fail for type without element |