Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 4. User charlie revokes alice's membership in admin.
> >>
> >> Now what? Alice's FK constraint is violated, according to the rules
> >> KaiGai proposes. Shall REVOKE have to grovel through every table in the
> >> database looking for possible violations ... and of course locking the
> >> entire DB against writes while it does it? That's not gonna fly. I
> >> also note that the failure would expose knowledge of the contents of BT
> >> and AT to charlie, which might not be thought desirable either.
>
> > I assume Alice now gets an error on the query that references the
> > now-invisible foreign key --- that sounds reasonable to me.
>
> You mean her data just disappears? Doesn't sound very reasonable to me.
Well, she actually gets an error rather than a query with missing data,
which is proabably the best we are going to do, unless we don't
implement row-level security at all.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
