Tom Lane wrote:
> As an example, the present patch imagines that it will have adequate
> control over inserts by putting hooks into simple_heap_insert and the
> (rather small number of) places that call heap_insert directly. But
> there are dozens of calls of simple_heap_insert and no way for the
> function itself to know why it is being called or on whose behalf.
> The patch's hook function tries to work around the fact that it hasn't
> got that information by means of heuristics. Aside from the question of
> whether there are bugs in those heuristics today (I'm certain there
> are), every time we accept a patch that adds another call of
> simple_heap_insert, we're going to have to revisit the hook to see
> if it needs to be twiddled.
>
> Another problem is that since the hook only knows the parameters to
> simple_heap_insert plus global state (such as current_user), it can't
> cope very well with security-related context changes. We have already
> heard that situations involving views are simply broken in the patch as
> it stands --- row-level permissions are checked against current_user
> and not the view owner, and there's no good way to fix that.
>
Leaving aside any other issues, it seems to me that the chance of
remedying these defects reasonably in a couple of weeks is just about nil.
That leaves the following questions: can the row-level part of the patch
be separated out, and if so how easily, and is what would be left worth
doing?
cheers
andrew
