Stephen Frost wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> On the whole I think we have to go back to the original plan of >> recursively searching the query's expressions after we've finished all >> the transformations (and have a completed jointree to refer to). This >> is slightly annoying on the grounds of adding parsing overhead that's >> completely useless unless per-column privileges are in use. On the >> other hand, none of the workable alternatives are exactly overhead-free >> either. >> >> Comments? > > Honestly, I like this approach. There is some additional overhead > during parsing, but it seems cleaner and more robust. Also, hopefully > in most cases where people are concerned about parse time they're > preparing their queries. If it's warrented, we could try doing > benchmarks to see how bad the impact is and if we need to do something > different. It doesn't strike me as likely to be a significant amount of > overhead though.
I agree with Stephen's opinion. Indeed, the walker approach requires additional steps during query parsing, but the code obviousness is a significant factor from the point of view of security. Thanks, -- OSS Platform Development Division, NEC KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
