Greetings, * David G. Johnston (david.g.johnston@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > You can consider this email to have accomplished both. Lacking someone > saying they they are working on it and pointing you to a patch you can > safely operate under the assumption that this behavior isn’t going to > change. I suppose its possible with the recent row-level security feature > that a fresh look leveraging that facility could be considered but AFAIK > that hasn’t and isn’t being done. Actually, there was work specifically around that which it'd be nice if someone had time to pick up and work on. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJrrPGdCZEVxQTs49CqxjjyffHKPFtff+sa6c6f5Z5grXztodw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx One of the big questions around that is how much good is it to limit access when the catalog tables are queried directly when you can gather information about what's in them in other ways that we wouldn't want to be running through RLS (such as when we do direct catalog accesses as part of some DDL or such). That's a similar trade-off that application designers have to deal with when using RLS (eg: primary key violations could 'leak' the knowledge that a particular value exists even if you can't see it) and in many cases it's acceptable. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
