Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security Documentation
| От | Rod Taylor |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security Documentation |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAHz80e56ao-giG_1wvOweTJiodHDkpyqSPQ_Wdi8e-vw=PaFcQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security Documentation (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security Documentation
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
--
Hello Rod,This version of the table attempts to stipulate which section of the
process the rule applies to.
The table should be referenced from the description, something like "Table xxx summarizes the ..."
Added the below which seemed consistent with other "see something else" messages.
A summary of the application of policies to a command is found in <xref linkend="SQL-CREATEPOLICY-SUMMARY">.
ISTM that it would be clearer to split the Policy column into "FOR xxx ..." and "USING" or "WITH CHECK", and to merge the rows which have the same "FOR xxx ..." contents, something like:
POLICY |
---------------+------------+-----
| USING | ...
FOR ALL ... +------------+-----
| WITH CHECK | ...
---------------+------------+-----
FOR SELECT ... | USING | ...
So that it is clear that only ALL & UPDATE can get both USING & WITH CHECK. This can be done with "morerows=1" on an entry so that it spans more rows.
Done. I couldn't figure out a morecols=1 equivalent to keep everything under the Policy heading without a full colspec.
For empty cells, maybe a dash would be clearer. Not sure.
Looked cluttered to me. Tried N/A first which was even worse.
Rod Taylor
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: