On 27 January 2014 15:04, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So for example, when planning the query to update an inheritance > child, the rtable will contain an RTE for the parent, but it will not > be referenced in the parse tree, and so it will not be expanded while > planning the child update. Am I right in thinking that we have this fully working now? If we commit this aspect soon, we stand a chance of also touching upon RLS. AFAICS the only area of objection is the handling of inherited relations, which occurs within the planner in the current patch. I can see that would be a cause for concern since the planner is pluggable and it would then be possible to bypass security checks. Obviously installing a new planner isn't trivial, but doing so shouldn't cause collateral damage. We have long had restrictions around updateable views. My suggestion from here is that we accept the restriction that we cannot yet have the 3-way combination of updateable views, security views and views on inherited tables. Most people aren't using inherited tables and people that are have special measures in place for their apps. We won't lose much by accepting that restriction for 9.4 and re-addressing the issue in a later release. We need not adopt an all or nothing approach. Perhaps we might yet find a solution for 9.4, but again, that need not delay the rest of the patch. >From a review perspective, I'd want to see some greatly expanded README comments, but given the Wiki entry, I think we can do that quickly. Other than that, the code seems clear, modular and well tested, so is something I could see me committing the uncontentious parts of. Thoughts? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
