Re: unclear about row-level security USING vs. CHECK

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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!