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
Description: OpenPGP digital signature