* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >> But you could do it other ways. For example: > >> > >> ALTER TABLE table_name [ NO ] ROW LEVEL SECURITY; > >> ALTER TABLE table_name GRANT ROW ACCESS TO role_name USING qual; > >> > >> If a table is set to NO ROW LEVEL SECURITY then it behaves just like > >> it does now: anyone who accesses it sees all the rows, restricted to > >> those columns for which they have permission. If the table is set to > >> ROW LEVEL SECURITY then the default is to show no rows. The second > >> command then allows access to a subset of the rows for a give role > >> name. In this case, it is probably logical for access to be combined > >> via OR. > > > > I can see value is having a table-level option to indicate if RLS is > > applied for that table or not, but I had been thinking we'd just > > automatically manage that. That is to say that once you define an RLS > > policy for a table, we go look and see what policy should be applied in > > each case. With the user able to control that, what happens if they say > > "row security" on the table and there are no policies? All access would > > show the table as empty? > > I said the same thing in the text you quoted immediately above this reply.
huh. Somehow I managed to only read the first sentence in that paragraph. Clearly I need to go get (more) coffee. Still- sounds like agreement. :) > > What if policies exist and they decide to > > 'turn off' RLS for the table- suddenly everyone can see all the rows? > > That'd be my vote. Sorta like disabling triggers. Hmm. Ok- how would you feel about at least spitting out a WARNING if there are still policies on the table in that case..? Just makes me a bit nervous to have a case where policies can be defined on a table but are not actually being enforced.. > > Are we getting to a point where there is sufficient agreement that it'd > > be worthwhile to really start implementing this? > > I think we're converging, but it might be a good idea to summarize a > specific proposal before you start implementing. Right- will do so later today. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature