Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1197)

From: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "KaiGai Kohei" <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1197)
Date: 2008-11-07 21:38:45
Message-ID: 603c8f070811071338k2befc69p1ef7f95e5d7a2ea6@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> The low-privilege user isn't elevating the label. If the tuple was
> visible by multiple labels it was already elevated. All I am suggesting
> is the system remove the one it can see, leaving the other ones intact.
> This makes the row appear to be deleted by the lower privileged user,
> whereas in fact it was merely updated. There need not be any ordering to
> the labels for this scheme to work.

I see. That seems like it makes sense, but what about the update case?

...Robert

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-11-07 21:44:51 Re: Updated backslash consistency patch
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-11-07 21:32:00 Re: pg_stop_backup wait bug fix