* Haribabu Kommi (kommi.harib...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * 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 changed in function check_enable_rls to use the invoker id instead of owner 
> id
> for all the system objects, the catalog table policies are getting
> applied and it is
> working fine till now in my multi-tenancy testing.
> Currently I am writing tests to validate it against all user objects also.
> If this change works for all user objects also, then we may not needed
> the security invoker
> reloption.

The reloption would be to allow the user to decide which behavior they
wanted, as there are use-cases for both.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to