From: | Zhaomo Yang <zmpgzm(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CREATE POLICY and RETURNING |
Date: | 2015-09-23 07:11:46 |
Message-ID: | CALPr3ow+1NN1u-PLSmkBy07f0qsZ0ALxhz_Wt33s7YyYMNDn+Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen,
It'd be great if others who are interested can help define the grammar
> changes necessary
> and perhaps even help with the code aspect of it.
I'd like to help on both. Can you elaborate a little bit more, especially
on the code aspect?
I don't buy that argument.
It is agreed that blind updates and deletes with RETURNING clause are
dangerous. It is quite similar here.
Instead of using
BEGIN
UPDATE-or-DELETE-with-RETURNING
ROLLBACK
as a substitute for SELECT, a malicious user can do a binary search with
some trick like divide-by-zero
to figure out rows he is not allowed to access. Of course, this is not as
serious as RETURNING, but it is still quite convenient for attackers.
Thanks,
Zhaomo
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-09-23 07:22:44 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
Previous Message | Shulgin, Oleksandr | 2015-09-23 06:27:40 | Re: Calculage avg. width when operator = is missing |