On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 14:35 +0000, Robert Haas wrote: > > 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 [ . . . ]
Sorry for following up on this so late, I have just been trying to catch up with the mailing lists. I am the developer of Veil, which this thread mentioned a number of times. I wanted to state/confirm a number of things: Veil is not up to date wrt Postgres versions. I didn't release a new version for 9.2, and when no-one complained I figured no-one other than me was using it. I'll happily update it if anyone wants it. Veil makes no attempt to avoid covert channels. It can't. Veil is a low-level toolset designed for optimising queries about privileges. It allows you to build RLS with reasonable performance, but it is not in itself a solution for RLS. I wish the Postgres RLS project well and look forward to its release in Postgres 9.4. __ Marc
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
