From: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Review of Row Level Security |
Date: | 2012-12-22 05:26:40 |
Message-ID: | CADyhKSWCamq0+97C5A2rHB1PqEq3uCCJGE7eeZLB03e2UnQjSw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/12/22 Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> On 21 December 2012 22:01, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>
>>> On the other hand, we are standing next to the consensus about
>>> reader-side; a unique row-security policy (so, first version does not
>>> support per-command policy) shall be checked on table scanning
>>> on select, update or delete commands.
>>
>> I don't feel that we've really reached a consensus about the
>> 'reader-side' implemented in this patch- rather, we've agreed (at a
>> pretty high level) what the default impact of RLS for SELECT queries is.
>> While I'm glad that we were able to do that, I'm rather dismayed that it
>> took a great deal of discussion to get to that point.
>
> Would anybody like to discuss this on a conference call on say 28th
> Dec, to see if we can agree a way forwards? I feel certain that we can
> work through any difficulties and agree a minimal subset for change.
> All comers welcome, just contact me offlist for details.
>
Of course, I'll join the conference. Please give me the detail.
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2012-12-22 09:53:47 | Re: foreign key locks |
Previous Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2012-12-22 05:18:24 | Re: Review of Row Level Security |