Re: Row level security implementation in Foreign Table in Postgres
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Row level security implementation in Foreign Table in Postgres |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20161108144403.GY13284@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Row level security implementation in Foreign Table in Postgres (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, all, * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Sounak Chakraborty <sounakr@gmail.com> wrote: > >> But my doubt is why this feature is not enabled in case of Foreign Table. (ALTER FOREIGN TABLE doesn't have a optionof enabling Row Level Security). > >> Is this is not implemented due to some limitations in the current design? > >> Because from a quick view it looks like the security subquery can also be easily attached to the main query and passedfor processing in foreign database. > > > Yeah, I don't see why that couldn't be made to work. > > Once the patch at <30304.1478211798@sss.pgh.pa.us> gets in, the major > issue will be that FDWs will have to be careful not to select quals for > optimization (ie pushing down to a remote server) unless they satisfy > restriction_is_securely_promotable(). In most cases that should be > about a one-line change in the FDW, but I'm not sure that it'd be a good > idea to just blindly assume that FDWs are doing that. We could perhaps > add some sort of "supports RLS" flag to the FDW API, which would not > get set unless the FDW author takes positive action to do so. That sounds like an entirely reasonable approach to me. Other than that, I agree that FDWs shouldn't be too difficult to add RLS support for as it seems pretty clear what the semantics there should be. Thanks! Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: