Dean, * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote: > A while ago [1] I proposed an enhancement to the way qual pushdown > safety is decided in RLS / security barrier views. Currently we just > test for the presence of leaky functions in the qual, but it is > possible to do better than that, by further testing if the leaky > function is actually being passed information that we don't want to be > leaked.
This certainly sounds reasonable to me.
> In fact the majority of builtin functions aren't marked leakproof, and
> probably most user functions aren't either, so this could potentially
> be useful in a wide range of real-world queries, where it is common to
> write quals of the form <column> <operator> <expression>, and the
> expression may contain leaky functions.
Agreed.
Looks like you've already added it to the next commitfest, which is
great. I'm definitely interested but probably won't get to it right
away as I have a few other things to address.
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
