On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >> > An interesting question we haven't much considered is: who can set up >> > policies and add then to users? Maybe we should flip this around, and >> > instead of adding users to policies, we should exempt users from >> > policies. >> > >> > CREATE POLICY p1; >> > >> > And then, if they own p1 and t1, they can do: >> > >> > ALTER TABLE t1 SET POLICY p1 TO t1_p1_quals; >> > (or maybe we should associate it to the policy instead of the table: >> > ALTER POLICY p1 SET TABLE t1 TO t1_p1_quals) >> > >> > And then the policy applies to everyone who doesn't have the grantable >> > EXEMPT privilege on the policy. The policy owner and superuser have >> > that privilege by default and it can be handed out to others like >> > this: >> > >> > GRANT EXEMPT ON POLICY p1 TO snowden; >> > >> > Then users who have row_level_security=on will bypass RLS if possible, >> > and otherwise it will be applied. Users who have >> > row_level_security=off will bypass RLS if possible, and otherwise >> > error. And users who have row_level_security=force will apply RLS >> > even if they are entitled to bypass it. >> >> That's interesting. I need to think some more about what that means. > > I'm not a fan of the EXEMPT approach..
Just out of curiosity, why not? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers