Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think it's entirely sensible to question whether we should reject (not
>> "hold up") RLS if it has major covert-channel problems.
> We've already had this argument before, about the security_barrier
> view stuff, and that code got committed and is already released. So
> the horse is already out of the barn and no amount of wishing will put
> it back in.
Well, the security-barrier view stuff did not present itself as a 100%
solution. But perhaps more to the point, it was conceptually simple to
implement, ie don't flatten views if they have this bit set, and don't
push down quals into such sub-selects unless they're marked leakproof.
> I haven't reviewed this patch in a long time, but I would
> expect that it's basically just reusing that same infrastructure; in
> fact, I'd expect that it's little more than syntactic sugar around
> that infrastructure.
I've not read it in great detail, but it isn't that. It's whacking the
planner around in ways that I have no confidence in, and probably still
wouldn't have any confidence in if they'd been adequately documented.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
