Re: [PATCH] Fix leaky VIEWs for RLS

(2010/06/08 11:28), Stephen Frost wrote:
> For the sake of clarity..
> 
> * KaiGai Kohei (kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
>> OK, it was too implementation-specific.
> 
> No, that wasn't the problem.  There isn't an actual implementation yet
> for it to be too-specific on.  The problem is that proposing a change to
> the catalog without figuring out what it'd actually be used for in an
> overall solution is a waste of time.
> 
Indeed,

>> Please return to the categorization with 3-level that I mentioned at
>> the previous message.
> 
> As Robert said, we're off in the weeds here.  I'm not convinced that
> we've got 3 levels, for starters.  It could well be fewer, or more.
> Let's stop making assumptions about what's OK and what's not OK.
> 
Indeed, we may find out the 4th category in the future.

>> For built-in functions, the code should be reviewed to ensure it does not
>> expose the given argument using error messages.
>> Then, we can mark it as trusted.
> 
> One thing that I think *is* clear- removing useful information from
> error messages is *not* going to be an acceptable "solution".
> 
Even if it is conditional, like as Greg Stark suggested?

Thanks,
-- 
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>