From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: WIP patch (v2) for updatable security barrier views |
Date: | 2014-01-10 07:57:45 |
Message-ID: | CAEZATCUodyohD0t5NC6dbAd_sjPnnksHpjaP17=d8psUcc2fvA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9 January 2014 15:19, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> My first thought was that it should just preprocess any security
>> barrier quals in subquery_planner() in the same way as other quals are
>> preprocessed. But thinking about it further, those quals are destined
>> to become the quals of subqueries in the range table, so we don't
>> actually want to preprocess them at that stage --- that will happen
>> later when the new subquery is planned by recursion back into
>> subquery_planner(). So I think the right answer is to make
>> adjust_appendrel_attrs() handle recursion into sublink subqueries.
>
> TBH, this sounds like doubling down on a wrong design choice.
Perhaps, but it's a design choice informed by all the problems that
arose from the previous attempts.
Right now I don't have any other ideas how to tackle this, so perhaps
continued testing to find where this falls down will inform a better
approach. If nothing else, we're collecting a useful set of test cases
that the final patch will need to pass.
Regards,
Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2014-01-10 08:04:07 | Re: array_length(anyarray) |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-01-10 06:47:58 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |