Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> On the whole I think we have to go back to the original plan of
>> recursively searching the query's expressions after we've finished all
>> the transformations (and have a completed jointree to refer to). This
>> is slightly annoying on the grounds of adding parsing overhead that's
>> completely useless unless per-column privileges are in use. On the
>> other hand, none of the workable alternatives are exactly overhead-free
>> either.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> Honestly, I like this approach. There is some additional overhead
> during parsing, but it seems cleaner and more robust. Also, hopefully
> in most cases where people are concerned about parse time they're
> preparing their queries. If it's warrented, we could try doing
> benchmarks to see how bad the impact is and if we need to do something
> different. It doesn't strike me as likely to be a significant amount of
> overhead though.
I agree with Stephen's opinion.
Indeed, the walker approach requires additional steps during query
parsing, but the code obviousness is a significant factor from the
point of view of security.
Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>