Horton

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables

Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>

View thread
From: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Gilles Darold <gilles.darold@dalibo.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-08-23T09:46:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-performance

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Move WAL sequence code into its own file

  2. Add ExplainState argument to pg_plan_query() and planner().

  3. Don't include access/htup_details.h in executor/tuptable.h

  4. Refactor to avoid code duplication in transformPLAssignStmt.

  5. Avoid including commands/dbcommands.h in so many places

  6. Restrict psql meta-commands in plain-text dumps.

  7. Split func.sgml into more manageable pieces

  8. Fix squashing algorithm for query texts

  9. EXPLAIN: Always use two fractional digits for row counts.

  10. Preliminary refactoring of plpgsql expression construction.

  11. plpgsql: pure parser and reentrant scanner

  12. Add some sanity checks in executor for query ID reporting

  13. Fix misleading error message context

  14. Add macros for looping through a List without a ListCell.

>> Security vs "good enough in some cases" looks bad to me.
>
> We don't find a agreement, because you are concentrated on transation, 
> me on session. And we have different expectations.

I do not understand your point, as usual. I raise a factual issue about 
security, and you do not answer how this can be solved with your proposal, 
but appeal to argument of authority and declare your "strong opinion".

I do not see any intrinsic opposition between having session objects and 
transactions. Nothing prevents a session object to be transactional beyond 
your willingness that it should not be.

Now, I do expect all PostgreSQL features to be security-wise, whatever 
their scope.

I do not think that security should be traded for "cheap & fast", esp as 
the sole use case for a feature is a security pattern that cannot be 
implemented securely with it. This appears to me as a huge contradiction, 
hence my opposition against this feature as proposed.

The good news is that I'm a nobody: if a committer is happy with your 
patch, it will get committed, you do not need my approval.

-- 
Fabien.