On 06/11/2014 02:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm ... I'm not following why we'd need a special case for superusers and
> not anyone else? Seems like any useful RLS scheme is going to require
> more privilege levels than just superuser and not-superuser.
What it really needs is to invalidate plans when switching between
RLS-enabled and RLS-exempt users, yes. I'm sure we'll want an "RLS
exempt" right or mode sooner rather than later, so I'm against tying
this explicitly to superuser as such.
I wouldn't be surprised to see
SET ROW SECURITY ON|OFF
down the track, with a right controlling whether you can or not. Or at
least, a right that directly exempts a user from row security.
> Could we put the "if superuser then ok" test into the RLS condition test
> and thereby not need more than one plan at all?
Only if we put it in another level of security barrier subquery, because
otherwise the planner might execute the other quals (including possible
user defined functions) before the superuser test. Which was the whole
reason for the superuser test in the first place.
-- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
