2010/7/23 KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>: >> Hmm. How about if there's just one provider loaded, you can omit it, >> but if you fail to specify it and there's>1 loaded, we just throw an >> error saying you didn't specify whose label it is. >> > Perhaps, we need to return the caller a state whether one provider checked > the given label at least, or not.
Return to the caller? This is an SQL command. You either get an error, or you don't. > If it was omitted, all the providers try to check the given label, but it > has mutually different format, so one of providers will raise an error at > least. Yeah, but it won't be a very clear error, and what if you have, say, a provider that allows arbitrary strings as labels? Since this is a security feature, I think it's a pretty bad idea to allow the user to do anything that might be ambiguous. > It means we have to specify the provider when two or more providers are > loaded, but not necessary when just one provider. But that should be fine. Loading multiple providers should, as you say, be fairly rare. >>>> I think it is 100% clear that row-level security will require >>>> completely separate infrastructure, and therefore I'm not even a tiny >>>> bit worried about this. :-) >>>> >>> Hmm. Are you saying we may degrade the feature when we switch to the >>> completely separate infrastructure? Is it preferable?? >> >> Uh... no, not really. I'm saying that I don't think we're backing >> ourselves into a corner. What makes you think we are? >> > Sorry, meaning of the last question was unclear for me.... Is it a idiom? I don't understand why we wouldn't be able to support multiple providers for row-level security. Why do you think that's a problem? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
