Re: Review of Row Level Security

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>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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