* Craig Ringer (craig@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 02:00 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I'm a bit confused on this point- is the only issue the
> > *preexisting* bug with security barrier views?
>
> This thread discusses two patches. The above refers to row security
> (per quoted text at top), not updatable security barrier views.
Right, I understood that.
> Updatable security barrier views are ready. There's a pre-existing bug
> with security barrier views, but updatable s.b. views don't make it
> any worse and it can be fixed separately.
Ok.
> Row security is not. It could possibly be committed w/o a fix for the
> security barrier bug by deleting the relevant regression tests, but
> Tom had reservations about plan invalidation in it, the docs need
> updating, and it needs a bunch more testing. It's possible I could
> have it ready in a few days - or it might be a couple of weeks. I ran
> out of time to work on it for 9.4.
So- row security makes the *existing bug* worse; I get that. The
question regarding plan invalidation may be something we can work out.
As for docs and testing, those are things we would certainly be better
off with and may mean that this isn't able to make it into 9.4, which is
fair, but I wouldn't toss it out solely due to that.
> > Craig, in general, I'd argue that a pre-existing bug isn't a reason
> > that a patch isn't ready for commit. The bug may need to be fixed
> > before the patch goes in, but saying a patch isn't ready implied,
> > to me at least, issues with the *patch*, which it sounds like isn't
> > the case here.
>
> I tend to agree, and for that reason want updatable security barrier
> views to make it in for 9.4.
Ok. I'm going to make a serious effort to find time to work on this, at
least. Right now I'm busy preparing to launch a new site (you'll see
the announce in a couple days...), etc, etc, but I should have time this
weekend...
Thanks,
Stephen
