| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: revamp row-security tracking |
| Date: | 2025-02-17 21:54:56 |
| Message-ID: | 933433.1739829296@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Perhaps another variation
> on this idea is to create a query walker that just looks for hasRowSecurity
> flags throughout the tree (and to use that to mark the plan cache entry
> appropriately).
That seems like a pretty plausible compromise position. So we'd
redefine Query.hasRowSecurity as summarizing the situation for only
the Query's own rtable entries, not recursively for sub-Queries.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-02-17 21:55:50 | Re: describe special values in GUC descriptions more consistently |
| Previous Message | Ayush Vatsa | 2025-02-17 21:45:30 | Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes |