| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi-tenancy with RLS |
| Date: | 2016-02-09 21:04:01 |
| Message-ID: | 56BA5441.5050605@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/09/2016 12:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> JD,
>
> * Joshua D. Drake (jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com) wrote:
>> pg_dump -U $non-super_user
>>
>> Should just work, period.
>
> That ship has sailed already, where you're running a pg_dump against
> objects you don't own and which have RLS enabled on them.
Just to be clear, what I was suggesting is that pg_dump would just work
(and RLS would properly execute) or in other words, I shouldn't have to
tell pg_dump to enable row security else throw an error. If RLS is
enabled, then the backup just runs with appropriate permissions.
Or am I missing something?
Sincerely,
JD
>
> Thanks!
>
> Stephen
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-02-09 21:07:21 | Re: Multi-tenancy with RLS |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-02-09 21:03:32 | Re: Multi-tenancy with RLS |