public inbox for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Gilles Darold <gilles.darold@dalibo.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 11:46:32 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1808231123050.31897@lancre> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFj8pRAcFv09qOcbr09c2AbwZ9DGw5Hs6rPcYoo7r9OLdWWB2A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFj8pRDY+m9OOxfO10R7J0PAkCCauM-TweaTrdsrsLGMb1VbEQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFj8pRBfb-GTZSHSRVTpMzGr26-7e-_RmOmRpmuk+xuDTgC=mA@mail.gmail.com>
<28924bcc-9242-9798-e4e8-9d83cea3fef6@dalibo.com>
<CAFj8pRBRxJ09ibuZT+KK3E+vc3-sXAz7HrbW3oVie7FwQRU-uQ@mail.gmail.com>
<ae98027e-25a7-b229-ffec-b05d68162718@dalibo.com>
<CAFj8pRATM44F1ugXxTn6aofxOa=3DZbqOJ17=EVyG+CEzsRQvw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFj8pRDnoA3J2RM=WZJdYBXEiJUOfDv-gyJmp81Pq93jmrBb5g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFj8pRCTz_CRez3vFo_Ta_m=KtOxBGHE9+T1QG3UgRbuURfzjA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFj8pRA_jZYuTRHEMsv8CnZLBqmnS5xRjcZh-uf0nBWA7WrzMA@mail.gmail.com>
<alpine.DEB.2.21.1808211938510.11873@lancre>
<CAFj8pRCRUpNjX9Fb49SaADbRnCE69ndkOvtoeKxwvxetfJ8=kA@mail.gmail.com>
<alpine.DEB.2.21.1808220831550.10677@lancre>
<CAFj8pRCyvx37Fnw6yHdscGbbGo_Ak3WdeKiZ6arFW8JTA099YA@mail.gmail.com>
<alpine.DEB.2.21.1808230927090.31897@lancre>
<CAFj8pRAcFv09qOcbr09c2AbwZ9DGw5Hs6rPcYoo7r9OLdWWB2A@mail.gmail.com>
>> 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.
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: coelho@cri.ensmp.fr, pavel.stehule@gmail.com, gilles.darold@dalibo.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1808231123050.31897@lancre>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox