Re: [v9.2] Fix leaky-view problem, part 1

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote:
>> BTW, regarding to the statement support for security barrier views,
>> the following syntax might be more consistent with existing ones:
>>  CREATE VIEW view_name WITH ( param [=value]) AS query ... ;
>> rather than
>>  CREATE SECURITY VIEW view_name AS query ...;
>> 
>> Any comments?

> I think I mildly prefer CREATE SECURITY VIEW to the parameter syntax
> in this case, but I don't hate the other one.

The WITH idea seems a bit more future-proof; in particular it would
easily accommodate specifying a security type, if we decide we need
various levels of leak-proof-ness.
        regards, tom lane