On 2020/02/03 11:05, Amit Langote wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 9:39 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
On 2020/01/31 13:38, Amit Langote wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:28 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
Fair enough. I finally did back-patch because the behavior is clearly
documented and I failed to hear the opinions to object the back-patch.
But I should have heard and discussed such risks more.
I'm OK to revert all those back-patch. Instead, probably the document
should be updated in old branches.
I could find only this paragraph in the section on inheritance that
talks about how access permissions work:
9.4:
"Note how table access permissions are handled. Querying a parent
table can automatically access data in child tables without further
access privilege checking. This preserves the appearance that the data
is (also) in the parent table. Accessing the child tables directly is,
however, not automatically allowed and would require further
privileges to be granted."
9.5-12:
"Inherited queries perform access permission checks on the parent
table only. Thus, for example, granting UPDATE permission on the
cities table implies permission to update rows in the capitals table
as well, when they are accessed through cities. This preserves the
appearance that the data is (also) in the parent table. But the
capitals table could not be updated directly without an additional
grant. In a similar way, the parent table's row security policies (see
Section 5.7) are applied to rows coming from child tables during an
inherited query. A child table's policies, if any, are applied only
when it is the table explicitly named in the query; and in that case,
any policies attached to its parent(s) are ignored."
Do you mean that the TRUNCATE exception should be noted here?
Yes, that's what I was thinking.
Okay. How about the attached?
Thanks for the patches! You added the note just after the description
about row level security on inherited table, but isn't it better to
add it before that? Attached patch does that. Thought?
Maybe, we should also note the LOCK TABLE exception?
Yes.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Advanced Platform Technology Group
Research and Development Headquarters
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
index d88651df9e..7550d03f27 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
@@ -3384,7 +3384,15 @@ VALUES ('Albany', NULL, NULL, 'NY');
accessed through <structname>cities</structname>. This preserves the
appearance
that the data is (also) in the parent table. But
the <structname>capitals</structname> table could not be updated directly
- without an additional grant. In a similar way, the parent table's row
+ without an additional grant. Two exceptions to this rule are
+ <command>TRUNCATE</command> and <command>LOCK TABLE</command>,
+ where permissions on the child tables are always checked,
+ whether they are processed directly or recursively via those commands
+ performed on the parent table.
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ In a similar way, the parent table's row
security policies (see <xref linkend="ddl-rowsecurity"/>) are applied to
rows coming from child tables during an inherited query. A child table's
policies, if any, are applied only when it is the table explicitly named
