On 09/15/2015 11:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:
>>> It also requires a DBA unwilling to
>>> furnish test accounts to custodians of sensitive data.  With or without
>>> row_security=force, such a team is on the outer perimeter of the audience 
>>> able
>>> to benefit from RLS.  Nonetheless, I'd welcome a replacement test aid.
>> I can't argue with that, I suppose, but I think row_security=force is
>> a pretty useful convenience.  If we must remove it, so be it, but I'd
>> be a little sad.
> Keep in mind that if you have an uncooperative DBA on your production
> system, you can always test your policy to your heart's content on a
> playpen installation.  In fact, most people would consider that good
> engineering practice anyway, rather than pushing untested code directly
> into production.

That's exactly right. We should provide flexibility for testing in test
environments, and also the ability to lock things down tight in production.


Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to