From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Row-security writer-side checks proposal |
Date: | 2013-11-12 14:35:21 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZPBSgcr=XD=pjUEptP2+h34nnM3MA-_55u-qqCob+J+w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/08/2013 11:03 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> > Separate "READ DELETE" etc would only be interesting if we wanted to let
>>> > someone DELETE rows they cannot SELECT. Since we have DELETE ...
>>> > RETURNING, and since users can write a predicate function for DELETE
>>> > that leaks the information even if we didn't, in practice if you give
>>> > the user any READ right you've given them all of them. So I don't think
>>> > we can support that (except maybe by column RLS down the track).
>>
>> Well, we could require SELECT privilege when a a RETURNING clause is present...
>
> Absolutely could. Wouldn't stop them grabbing the data via a predicate
> function on the update/delete, though, and we can't sanely (IMO) require
> SELECT rights if they want to use non-LEAKPROOF functions/operators either.
Hmm, good point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-12 14:38:22 | Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-11-12 14:34:46 | Re: Postgresql c function returning one row with 2 fileds |