Re: when is RLS policy applied
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: when is RLS policy applied |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 575913.1595621731@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | when is RLS policy applied (Ted Toth <txtoth@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: when is RLS policy applied
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
Ted Toth <txtoth@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm trying to understand when RLS select policy is applied so I created the
> follow to test but I don't understand why the query filter order is
> different for the 2 queries can anyone explain?
The core reason why not is that the ~~ operator isn't considered
leakproof. Plain text equality is leakproof, so it's safe to evaluate
ahead of the RLS filter --- and we'd rather do so because the plpgsql
function is assumed to be much more expensive than a built-in operator.
(~~ isn't leakproof because it can throw errors that expose information
about the pattern argument.)
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: