Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> It does seem weird to simply omit records rather than throw an error
> The presumption is that if you know the data exists but can't access it
> directly, you'll use indirect methods to derive what it is. But if you
> don't even know it exists, then you won't look for it.
Right, which is why it's bad for something like a foreign key constraint
to expose the fact that the row does exist after all.
> There's a level above that which I don't think SEPostgres implements,
> which is data substitution, in which you see different data according to
> what security level you are. While this may seem insane for a business
> application, for military-support applications it makes some sense.
I think it might be possible to build such a thing using views, but I
agree that the patch doesn't give it to you for free.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
