On 23.08.2018 12:46, Fabien COELHO wrote:
I do not understand your point, as usual. I raise a factual issue
about security, and you do not answer how this can be solved with your
proposal, but appeal to argument of authority and declare your "strong
opinion".
I do not see any intrinsic opposition between having session objects
and transactions. Nothing prevents a session object to be
transactional beyond your willingness that it should not be.
Now, I do expect all PostgreSQL features to be security-wise, whatever
their scope.
I do not think that security should be traded for "cheap & fast", esp
as the sole use case for a feature is a security pattern that cannot
be implemented securely with it. This appears to me as a huge
contradiction, hence my opposition against this feature as proposed.
I can't to agree with your position.
Consider this example.
I want to record some inappropriate user actions to audit table and
rollback transaction.
But aborting transaction will also abort record to audit table.
So, do not use tables, becouse they have security implications.
This is very similar to your approach.
Schema variables is a very needed and important feature, but for others
purposes.
-----
Pavel Luzanov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
