Noah,
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 04:04:29PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> > Pushed to HEAD and 9.5
>
> I reviewed this commit, f781a0f "Create a pg_shdepend entry for each role in
> TO clause of policies."
Thanks for the review!
> This commit rendered the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 04:04:29PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 07/27/2015 05:34 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> > On 07/27/2015 01:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Hmm, these are not ACL objects, so conceptually it seems cleaner
> >> to use a different symbol for this. I think the catalog state
> >>
Noah,
First off, thanks again for your review and comments on RLS. Hopefully
this addresses the last remaining open item from that review.
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:37:24PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > +
> > + Referential integrity checks, such
On 07/29/2015 02:41 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
I don't think there is any point in adding the new function
transformPolicyClause(), which is identical to transformWhereClause().
You can just use transformWhereClause() with EXPR_KIND_POLICY. It's
already used for lots of other expression kinds.
On 07/29/2015 08:46 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 07/29/2015 01:01 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
The CreatePolicy() and AlterPolicy() changes look OK to me, but the
RemovePolicyById() change looks to be unnecessary ---
RemovePolicyById() is called only from doDeletion(), which in turned
is called only
On 29 July 2015 at 16:52, Joe Conway joe.con...@crunchydata.com wrote:
On 07/29/2015 02:41 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
I don't think there is any point in adding the new function
transformPolicyClause(), which is identical to transformWhereClause().
You can just use transformWhereClause() with
On 07/29/2015 01:01 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
The CreatePolicy() and AlterPolicy() changes look OK to me, but the
RemovePolicyById() change looks to be unnecessary ---
RemovePolicyById() is called only from doDeletion(), which in turned
is called only from deleteOneObject(), which already
On 07/29/2015 02:41 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
I don't think there is any point in adding the new function
transformPolicyClause(), which is identical to transformWhereClause().
You can just use transformWhereClause() with EXPR_KIND_POLICY. It's
already used for lots of other expression kinds.
On 29 July 2015 at 20:36, Joe Conway joe.con...@crunchydata.com wrote:
On 07/29/2015 02:41 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
I don't think there is any point in adding the new function
transformPolicyClause(), which is identical to transformWhereClause().
You can just use transformWhereClause() with
Joe Conway wrote:
On 07/29/2015 02:41 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
I don't think there is any point in adding the new function
transformPolicyClause(), which is identical to transformWhereClause().
You can just use transformWhereClause() with EXPR_KIND_POLICY. It's
already used for lots of
On 07/29/2015 02:56 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 07/29/2015 02:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Why not just in policy expressions? There's no third kind that does
allow these.
WFM
Sold! Will do it that way.
Committed/pushed to HEAD and 9.5.
Joe
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Joe Conway joe.con...@crunchydata.com
wrote:
The equivalent message for functions is:
.. are not allowed in functions in FROM
So how does this sound:
... are not allowed in policies in USING and WITH CHECK expressions
or perhaps
On 07/29/2015 01:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think this reads a bit funny. What's a POLICY USING clause? I
expect that translators will treat the two words POLICY USING as a
single token, and the result is not
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Joe Conway joe.con...@crunchydata.com wrote:
On 07/29/2015 01:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think this reads a bit funny. What's a POLICY USING clause? I
expect that translators
On 07/29/2015 02:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Why not just in policy expressions? There's no third kind that does
allow these.
WFM
Sold! Will do it that way.
Joe
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think this reads a bit funny. What's a POLICY USING clause? I
expect that translators will treat the two words POLICY USING as a
single token, and the result is not going to make any sense.
Maybe in a policy's
On 29 July 2015 at 02:36, Joe Conway joe.con...@crunchydata.com wrote:
On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
(6) AlterPolicy() calls InvokeObjectPostAlterHook(PolicyRelationId, ...), but
CreatePolicy() and DropPolicy() lack their respective hook invocations.
Patch attached. Actually
On 29 July 2015 at 05:02, Joe Conway joe.con...@crunchydata.com wrote:
On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
(7) Using an aggregate function in a policy predicate elicits an inapposite
error message due to use of EXPR_KIND_WHERE for parse analysis. Need a new
ParseExprKind. Test case:
On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
(6) AlterPolicy() calls InvokeObjectPostAlterHook(PolicyRelationId, ...), but
CreatePolicy() and DropPolicy() lack their respective hook invocations.
Patch attached. Actually AlterPolicy() was also missing its hook -- the
existing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/27/2015 05:34 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 07/27/2015 01:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Hmm, these are not ACL objects, so conceptually it seems cleaner
to use a different symbol for this. I think the catalog state
and the error messages would be
On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
(4) When DefineQueryRewrite() is about to convert a table to a view, it checks
the table for features unavailable to views. For example, it rejects tables
having triggers. It omits to reject tables having relrowsecurity or a
pg_policy record. Test
On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
(7) Using an aggregate function in a policy predicate elicits an inapposite
error message due to use of EXPR_KIND_WHERE for parse analysis. Need a new
ParseExprKind. Test case:
Patch attached. Comments?
Joe
diff --git
* Joe Conway (joe.con...@crunchydata.com) wrote:
On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
(4) When DefineQueryRewrite() is about to convert a table to a view, it
checks
the table for features unavailable to views. For example, it rejects tables
having triggers. It omits to reject
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/28/2015 11:50 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Joe Conway (joe.con...@crunchydata.com) wrote:
On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
(4) When DefineQueryRewrite() is about to convert a table to a
view, it checks the table for features
Joe Conway wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
(2) CreatePolicy() and AlterPolicy() omit to create a pg_shdepend
entry for each role in the TO clause. Test case:
Please see the attached patch. Note that I used
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/27/2015 01:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Hmm, these are not ACL objects, so conceptually it seems cleaner to
use a different symbol for this. I think the catalog state and the
error messages would be a bit confusing otherwise.
Ok -- done
On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
+static void
+dumpPolicy(Archive *fout, PolicyInfo *polinfo)
...
+if (polinfo-polqual != NULL)
+appendPQExpBuffer(query, USING %s, polinfo-polqual);
(3) The USING clause needs parentheses; a dump+reload failed like so:
Also needed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
(2) CreatePolicy() and AlterPolicy() omit to create a pg_shdepend
entry for each role in the TO clause. Test case:
Please see the attached patch. Note that I used SHARED_DEPENDENCY_ACL
for this. It seems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/10/2015 06:15 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 03:08:53PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
(1) CreatePolicy() and AlterPolicy() omit to call
assign_expr_collations() on the node trees.
The
On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
(1) CreatePolicy() and AlterPolicy() omit to call assign_expr_collations() on
the node trees. Test case:
begin;
set row_security = force;
create table t (c) as values ('bar'::text);
create policy p on t using (c ('foo'::text COLLATE C));
alter
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 03:08:53PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
(1) CreatePolicy() and AlterPolicy() omit to call assign_expr_collations()
on
the node trees.
The attached fixes this issue for me, but I am unsure whether we really
need/want the
Noah,
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:37:24PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
I agree that it's great that we're catching issues prior to when the
feature is released and look forward to anything else you (or
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:37:24PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
I agree that it's great that we're catching issues prior to when the
feature is released and look forward to anything else you (or anyone
else!) finds.
I've pushed a fix for this.
Robert, all,
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I happened to notice this morning while hacking that the
hasRowSecurity fields added to PlannerGlobal and PlannedStmt have
not been given proper nodefuncs.c support. Both need to be added
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I happened to notice this morning while hacking that the
hasRowSecurity fields added to PlannerGlobal and PlannedStmt have
not been given proper nodefuncs.c support. Both need to be added to
outfuncs.c, and the latter to copyfuncs.c. The
I happened to notice this morning while hacking that the
hasRowSecurity fields added to PlannerGlobal and PlannedStmt have
not been given proper nodefuncs.c support. Both need to be added to
outfuncs.c, and the latter to copyfuncs.c. The latter omission may
well be a security bug, although I
36 matches
Mail list logo
