* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > We've got one reloption for views already - security_barrier. Maybe > we could have another one that effectively changes a particular view > from "security definer" as it is today to "security invoker".
As I recall, there was a previous suggestion (honestly, I thought it was your idea) to have a reloption which made views "fully" security definer, in that functions in the view definition would run as the view owner instead of the view invoker. I liked that idea, though we would need to have a function to say "who is the 'outer' user?" (CURRENT_USER always being the owner with the above described reloption). I'm less sure about the idea of having a view which runs entirely as the view invoker, but I'm not against it either. I do think both of those are independent of supporting policies for views and foreign tables though, which we'd want even if we had reloptions for the above ideas. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
