On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:14:40PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> David,
>
> * David Fetter (david@fetter.org) wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnaka@iki.fi) wrote:
> > > > Even if you have a separate "verifier type" column, it's not fully
> > > > normalized, because there's still a dependency between the
> > > > verifier and verifier type columns. You will always need to look
> > > > at the verifier type to make sense of the verifier itself.
> > >
> > > That's true- but you don't need to look at the verifier, or even
> > > have *access* to the verifier, to look at the verifier type.
> >
> > Would a view that shows only what's to the left of the first semicolon
> > suit this purpose?
>
> Obviously a (security barrier...) view or a (security definer) function
> could be used, but I don't believe either is actually a good idea.
Would you be so kind as to help me understand what's wrong with that idea?
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate