On 01/06/2016 12:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> May be you missed to apply the 3_shared_catalog_tenancy_v4 path,
>> because 4_database_catalog_tenancy_v5 patch depends on it.
>> Here I attached all the patches for your convenience, I am able to
>> apply all patches in the order without any problem.
> Is any committer thinking about taking a serious look at this patch series?
> I ask because (1) it seems like it could be nice to have but (2) it
> frightens me terribly.  We are generally very sparing about assuming
> that "stuff" (triggers, partial indexes, etc.) that works for user
> tables can also be made to work for system tables.  I haven't thought
> deeply about what might go wrong in this particular case, but it
> strikes me that if Haribabu Kommi is building something that is doomed
> for some reason, it would be good to figure that out before he spends
> any more time on it than he already has.

As Stephen mentioned, yes, I am very interested in at least some aspects
of this patch. The ability to apply RLS to system tables could be useful
to solve a number of problems we don't have a good story for today,
multi-tenancy only being one of them.

> Apart from the issue of whether this is doomed for some architectural
> reason, it is not entirely clear to me that there's any consensus that
> we want this.  I don't think that I understand the issues here well
> enough to proffer an opinion of my own just yet... but I'd like to
> hear what other people think.

As said above, I definitely see a need for something like this if not
this specifically.

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