| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pierre Ducroquet <p(dot)psql(at)pinaraf(dot)info> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Row Level Security − leakproof-ness and performance implications |
| Date: | 2019-03-18 19:52:31 |
| Message-ID: | a5f0f8ec-bcdb-154b-be27-4109ee18edfa@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-02-28 00:03, Joe Conway wrote:
> What if we provided an option to redact all client messages (leaving
> logged messages as-is). Separately we could provide a GUC to force all
> functions to be resolved as leakproof. Depending on your requirements,
> having both options turned on could be perfectly acceptable.
There are two commit fest entries for this thread, one in Pierre's name
and one in yours. Is your entry for the error message redacting
functionality? I think that approach has been found not to actually
satisfy the leakproofness criteria.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikolay Shaplov | 2019-03-18 19:54:04 | Re: [PATCH][PROPOSAL] Add enum releation option type |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2019-03-18 19:49:46 | Re: jsonpath |