Re: [PATCH] Add reloption for views to enable RLS

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Christoph Heiss <christoph(dot)heiss(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: walther(at)technowledgy(dot)de, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add reloption for views to enable RLS
Date: 2022-03-14 16:16:33
Message-ID: 89079505ab53c788100015a964099a32dc2e912c.camel@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2022-03-14 at 13:40 +0100, Christoph Heiss wrote:
> On 3/9/22 16:06, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > This paragraph contains a couple of grammatical errors.
>
> Replaced the two paragraphs with your suggestion, it is indeed easier to
> read.
>
> > Also, this:
> > could be written like this (introducing a new variable):
> >
> >    if (rule->event == CMD_SELECT
> >        && relation->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_VIEW
> >        && RelationHasSecurityInvoker(relation))
> >        user_for_check = InvalidOid;
> >    else
> >        user_for_check = relation->rd_rel->relowner;
> >
> >    setRuleCheckAsUser((Node *) rule->actions, user_for_check);
> >    setRuleCheckAsUser(rule->qual, user_for_check);
> >
> > This might be easier to read.
>
> Makes sense, I've changed that. This also seems to be more in line with
> all the other code.
> While at it I also split the comment alongside it to match, hopefully
> that makes sense.

The patch is fine from my point of view.

It passes "make check-world".

I'll mark it as "ready for committer".

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Imseih (AWS), Sami 2022-03-14 16:20:51 Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum
Previous Message Dipesh Pandit 2022-03-14 16:11:35 Re: refactoring basebackup.c