From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
Cc: | sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Column-Level Privileges |
Date: | 2009-01-21 03:35:02 |
Message-ID: | 9602.1232508902@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> writes:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>>> On the whole I think we have to go back to the original plan of
>>> recursively searching the query's expressions after we've finished all
>>> the transformations (and have a completed jointree to refer to).
>>
>> Honestly, I like this approach.
> I agree with Stephen's opinion.
> Indeed, the walker approach requires additional steps during query
> parsing, but the code obviousness is a significant factor from the
> point of view of security.
On looking closer, though, it's *still* messy and unobvious :-(.
There is no single place in the parser where we have the complete
multi-level query tree available in a convenient form for this sort of
postprocessing.
I've thought of a less painful variant of my third option: instead of
making a permanent addition to RangeTblEntry, we can have a transient
data structure attached to ParseState that lets us find the JoinExpr
nodes for already-parsed joins. I'm going to try that next.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-01-21 03:45:16 | Re: Column-Level Privileges |
Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-01-21 03:02:58 | Re: Column-Level Privileges |