Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security UPDATE Confusion - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security UPDATE Confusion
Date
Msg-id 20170417195101.GD9812@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security UPDATE Confusion  (Rod Taylor <rod.taylor@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Rod,

* Rod Taylor (rod.taylor@gmail.com) wrote:
> Yep. It's equivalent to a DELETE or DEACTIVATE. RLS may not be the right
> facility but it was very close to working exactly the way I wanted in FOR
> ALL mode.

Turning an UPDATE into, effectively, a DELETE, does seem like it's
beyond the mandate of RLS.  Using an on-delete trigger strikes me as a
good approach.

The base premise of not allowing rows to be 'given away', similar to how
we don't allow full objects to be given away, should be enforced for the
'ALL' policy case, just as it is for the individual-command case.  I'll
get that addressed before the next set of minor releases and will also
see about improving the documentation and code comments to make it more
clear.

Thanks!

Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Self-signed certificate instructions
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade