| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Kohei(dot)Kaigai(at)emea(dot)nec(dot)com, thom(at)linux(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Subject: | Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem |
| Date: | 2011-09-26 14:06:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobeeOd0y-QKXDziea3p86mfD3S6QbPT9BMT2j2cGKLfjA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
>> No, you're missing my point completely. If we use a flexible options
>> syntax here, then we have to decide on what behavior CREATE OR REPLACE
>> should have for all future options, without knowing what they are yet,
>> or what behavior will be appropriate.
>>
> Hmm. Indeed, it seems to me fair enough reason.
>
> In this syntax case, the only way to clear the security_barrier flag
> is to drop view
> once, then create a view, isn't it?
I was imagining we'd have ALTER VIEW .. [NO] SECURITY or something like that.
> And, is the security_barrier flag still stored within reloptions field?
No. That would be missing the point.
But keep in mind no one else has endorsed my reasoning on this one as yet...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-26 14:08:54 | Re: [v9.2] make_greater_string() does not return a string in some cases |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-26 14:04:10 | Re: contrib/sepgsql regression tests are a no-go |