On 01/23/2014 06:06 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 21 January 2014 09:18, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, please review the patch from 09-Jan
>> (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEZATCUiKxOg=voovja2s6g-sixzzxg18totggp8zobq6qn...@mail.gmail.com).
> After further testing I found a bug --- it involves having a security
> barrier view on top of a base relation that has a rule that rewrites
> the query to have a different result relation, and possibly also a
> different command type, so that the securityQuals are no longer on the
> result relation, which is a code path not previously tested and the
> rowmark handling was wrong. That's probably a pretty obscure case in
> the context of security barrier views, but that code path would be
> used much more commonly if RLS were built on top of this. Fortunately
> the fix is trivial --- updated patch attached.

This is the most recent patch I see, and the one I've been working on
top of.

Are there any known tests that this patch fails?

Can we construct any tests that this patch fails? If so, can we make it
pass them, or error out cleanly?

The discussion has gone a bit off the wall a bit - partly my fault I
think - I mentioned inheritance. Lets try to refocus on the immediate
patch at hand, and whether it's good to go.

Right now, I'm not personally aware of tests cases that cause this code
to fail.

There's a good-taste complaint about handling of inheritance, but
frankly, there's not much about inheritance that _is_ good taste. I
don't see that this patch makes it worse, and it's functional.

It might be interesting to revisit some of these broader questions in
9.5, but what can we do to get this functionality in place for 9.4?

 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to