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

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 09:02:59AM +0200, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> On 2011-07-09 09:14, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>> OK, I'll try to modify the patch according to the flag of pg_proc design.
>> As long as the default of user-defined function is off, and we provide
>> built-in functions
>> with appropriate configurations, it seems to me the burden of DBA is
>> quite limited.
>
> A different solution to the leaky view problem could be to check access  
> to a tuple at or near the heaptuple visibility level, in addition to  
> adding tuple access filter conditions to the query. This would have both  
> the possible performance benefits of the query rewriting solution, as  
> the everything is filtered before further processing at the heaptuple  
> visibility level. Fixing leaky views is not needed because they don't  
> exist in this case, the code is straightforward, and there's less change  
> of future security bugs by either misconfiguration of leakproof  
> functions or code that might introduce another leak path.

The SQL-level semantics of the view define the access rules in question.  How
would you translate that into tests to apply at a lower level?

-- 
Noah Misch                    http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services