On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:14:40PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > David, > > * David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > > > > Even if you have a separate "verifier type" column, it's not fully > > > > normalized, because there's still a dependency between the > > > > verifier and verifier type columns. You will always need to look > > > > at the verifier type to make sense of the verifier itself. > > > > > > That's true- but you don't need to look at the verifier, or even > > > have *access* to the verifier, to look at the verifier type. > > > > Would a view that shows only what's to the left of the first semicolon > > suit this purpose? > > Obviously a (security barrier...) view or a (security definer) function > could be used, but I don't believe either is actually a good idea.
Would you be so kind as to help me understand what's wrong with that idea? Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
