From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Charles Clavadetscher <clavadetscher(at)swisspug(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: unclear about row-level security USING vs. CHECK |
Date: | 2015-09-28 16:31:33 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY2RqLhM7P9xpd=DPUXd_qBDVMYO1BztEM+P=sjRGbYfg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 9/23/15 3:41 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I see. But it is a bit odd to hide this very fundamental behavior
> somewhere in a paragraph that starts out with something about roles.
>
> There is also a mistake, I believe: DELETE policies also take both a
> CHECK and a USING clause.
>
> I still find something about this weird, but I'm not sure what. It's
> not clear to me at what level this USING->CHECK mapping is applied. I
> can write FOR ALL USING and it will be mapped to CHECK for all actions,
> including INSERT, but when I write FOR INSERT USING it complains. Why
> doesn't it do the mapping that case, too?
We are really pushing our luck only hammering this stuff out now. But
I think I agree with Peter's concerns, FWIW.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2015-09-28 16:41:18 | Re: No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So! |
Previous Message | YUriy Zhuravlev | 2015-09-28 16:14:40 | Re: No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So! |