Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> writes:
>>> I'll try your approash in first, as follows:
>> This seems a vast amount of uglification to avoid adding an argument to
>> CreateTemplateTupleDesc. We do that kind of thing all the time --- it
>> is a simple and reliable change to make.
>>
>> When designing a patch, you should generally try to make the code look
>> like the patch has been there all along. Contorting logic to avoid
>> a simple API change is not good.
>
> Just to chime in, I agree with Simon's direction of making the security
> specification for the table match WITH OIDS, and agree with Tom that the
> implementation should follow the WITH OIDS API for clarity, not trying
> to reduce the change footprint. Basically, if WITH OIDS and security
> definer behave the same in the API, there is little additional code
> _complexity_, even if the patch is now larger.
OK, I'll try to start implementing the feature again.
However, the toggle of row-level security feature should be controled
via a GUC option, not a discretionary option.
I'll add a "sepostgresql_row_level" option defined as bool to control
it on start up time.
In addition, please do not stop reviewing the current patch set
due to lack of the feature to disable row-level security.
Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>