Re: BUG #13780: Multiple commands not allowed for creating a policy.
От | Caleb Meredith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #13780: Multiple commands not allowed for creating a policy. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABFpK62sDdQBMwM59tmnPOZ9+SMdWakSXk3NvcvAytd0FbS4OA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #13780: Multiple commands not allowed for creating a policy. (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
My use case is I want users to see more data then they can edit. So select would have a broad USAGE clause and the write commands (insert, update, delete) would have a narrow USAGE/WITH CLAUSE check. On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:59 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > Michael, > > * Michael Paquier (michael.paquier@gmail.com) wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:23 PM, <calebmeredith8@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This doesn't seem to be intended as the GRANT specification allows it, > and > > > CREATE POLICY supports the ALL command. > > > > Yeah, I would tend to agree that the existence of ALL contradicts the > > expression constraints that are in place when defining a non-ALL policy > as > > we could basically ignore either the WITH CHECK or USING clauses defined > in > > a policy defined depending on the DML or SELECT command used. To be more > > exact, for example with an ALL policy that has both a WITH CHECK and > USING > > defined, we would ignore the USING clause with an INSERT query, right? We > > are in beta2 state now, so I don't think anything is going to change, but > > Stephen, your thoughts perhaps? > > We could support allowing multiple commands for a policy and would just > need to adjust the checks to make sure that the policy definition makes > sense, but that's all new-feature type of work which would be for 9.6 > and not a bug in the current implementation. I'm certainly not against > doing that, but it doesn't seem like a terribly high priority. > > Thanks! > > Stephen >
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: