Re: Row security violation error is misleading

From: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Row security violation error is misleading
Date: 2015-04-09 06:56:44
Message-ID: CAEZATCV_tn6BKeNU7_6UB7bLpCYi8Cpg5KgTMxO5EpdaSoCMWQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 8 April 2015 at 16:27, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Dean Rasheed (dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> I actually re-used the sql status code 42501 -
>> ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_PRIVILEGE for a RLS check failure because of the
>> parallel with permissions checks, but I quite like Craig's idea of
>> inventing a new status code for this, so that it can be more easily
>> distinguished from a lack of GRANTed privileges.
>
> As I mentioned to Kevin, I'm not sure that this is really a useful
> distinction. I'm quite curious if other systems provide that
> distinction between grant violations and policy violations. If they do
> then that would certainly bolster the argument to provide the
> distinction in PG.
>

OK, on further reflection I think that's probably right.

ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_PRIVILEGE is certainly more appropriate than
anything based on a WCO violation, because it reflects the fact that
the current user isn't allowed to perform the insert/update, but
another user might be allowed, so this is a privilege problem, not a
data error.

Regards,
Dean

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2015-04-09 07:01:41 Re: GUC context information in the document.
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2015-04-09 06:52:40 Re: Row security violation error is misleading