Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> 4. User charlie revokes alice's membership in admin. > >> > >> Now what? Alice's FK constraint is violated, according to the rules > >> KaiGai proposes. Shall REVOKE have to grovel through every table in the > >> database looking for possible violations ... and of course locking the > >> entire DB against writes while it does it? That's not gonna fly. I > >> also note that the failure would expose knowledge of the contents of BT > >> and AT to charlie, which might not be thought desirable either. > > > I assume Alice now gets an error on the query that references the > > now-invisible foreign key --- that sounds reasonable to me. > > You mean her data just disappears? Doesn't sound very reasonable to me.
Well, she actually gets an error rather than a query with missing data, which is proabably the best we are going to do, unless we don't implement row-level security at all. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
