Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem
Date
Msg-id 23509.1315411540@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem
Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem
List pgsql-hackers
Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> I liked NOLEAKY for its semantics, though I probably would have spelled it
> "LEAKPROOF".  PostgreSQL will trust the function to implement a specific,
> relatively-unintuitive security policy.  We want the function implementers to
> read that policy closely and not rely on any intuition they have about the
> "trusted" term of art.  Our use of TRUSTED in CREATE LANGUAGE is more
> conventional, I think, as is the trusted nature of SECURITY DEFINER.  In that
> vein, folks who actually need SECURITY DEFINER might first look at TRUSTED;
> NOLEAKY would not attract the same unwarranted attention.

I agree that TRUSTED is a pretty bad choice here because of the high
probability that people will think it means something else than what
it really means.  LEAKPROOF isn't too bad.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: OPERATOR FAMILY and pg_dump