On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I was thinking something like this could work, but I would go
> further. Suppose you had separate GRANTable privileges for direct
> access to individual tables, bypassing RLS, e.g.
>
> GRANT DIRECT SELECT|INSERT|UPDATE|DELETE ON table_name TO role_name
So, is this one new privilege (DIRECT) or four separate new privileges
that are variants of the existing privileges (DIRECT SELECT, DIRECT
INSERT, DIRECT UPDATE, DIRECT DELETE)?
> Actually, given the fact that the majority of users won't be using
> RLS, I would be tempted to invert the above logic and have the new
> privilege be for LIMITED access (via RLS quals). So a user granted the
> normal SELECT privilege would be able to bypass RLS, but a user only
> granted LIMITED SELECT wouldn't.
Well, for the people who are not using RLS, there's no difference
anyway. I think it matters more what users of RLS will expect from a
command like GRANT SELECT ... and I'm guessing they'll prefer that RLS
always apply unless they very specifically grant the right for RLS to
not apply. I might be wrong, though.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
