Robert, On Friday, July 11, 2014, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > My feeling at the moment is that having them be per-table makes sense and > > we'd still have flexibility to change later if we had some compelling > reason > > to do so. > > I don't think you can really change it later. If policies are > per-table, then you could have a policy p1 on table t1 and also on > table t2; if they become global objects, then you can't have p1 in two > places. I hope I'm not beating a dead horse here, but changing syntax > after it's been released is very, very hard. Fair enough. My thinking was we'd come up with a way to map them (eg: table_policy), but I do agree that changing it later would really suck and having them be per-table makes a lot of sense. > But that's not an argument against doing it this way; I think > per-table policies are probably simpler and better here. It means, > for example, that policies need not have their own permissions and > ownership structure - they're part of the table, just like a > constraint, trigger, or rule, and the table owner's permissions > control. I like that, and I think our users will, too. Agreed and I believe this is more-or-less what I had proposed up-thread (not at a computer at the moment). I hope to have a chance to review and update the design and flush out the catalog definition this weekend. Thanks! Stephen
