On 2024-07-30 08:30 +0200, Yugo NAGATA wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 01:36:55 +0200 > Erik Wienhold <e...@ewie.name> wrote: > > > On 2024-07-01 15:08 +0200, Yugo NAGATA wrote: > > > I would like to propose to add a new field to psql's \dAo+ meta-command > > > to show whether the underlying function of an operator is leak-proof. > > > > +1 for making that info easily accessible. > > > > > This idea is inspired from [1] that claims some indexes uses non-LEAKPROOF > > > functions under the associated operators, as a result, it can not be > > > selected > > > for queries with security_barrier views or row-level security policies. > > > The original proposal was to add a query over system catalogs for looking > > > up > > > non-leakproof operators to the documentation, but I thought it is useful > > > to improve \dAo results rather than putting such query to the doc. > > > > > > The attached patch adds the field to \dAo+ and also a description that > > > explains the relation between indexes and security quals with referencing > > > \dAo+ meta-command. > > > > > > [1] > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/raw/5af3bf0c-5e0c-4128-81dc-084c5258b1af%40code406.com > > > > \dAo+ output looks good. > > Thank you for looking into this. > I attached a patch updated with your suggestions.
LGTM, thanks. > > > > But this patch fails regression tests in src/test/regress/sql/psql.sql > > (\dAo+ btree float_ops) because of the new leak-proof column. I think > > this could even be changed to "\dAo+ btree array_ops|float_ops" to also > > cover operators that are not leak-proof. > > Thank you for pointing out this. I fixed it with you suggestion to cover > non leak-proof operators, too. > > > +<para> > > + For example, an index scan can not be selected for queries with > > > > I check the docs and "cannot" is more commonly used than "can not". > > Fixed. > > > > > + <literal>security_barrier</literal> views or row-level security > > policies if an > > + operator used in the <literal>WHERE</literal> clause is associated > > with the > > + operator family of the index, but its underlying function is not marked > > + <literal>LEAKPROOF</literal>. The <xref linkend="app-psql"/> program's > > + <command>\dAo+</command> meta-command is useful for listing the > > operators > > + with associated operator families and whether it is leak-proof. > > +</para> > > > > I think the last sentence can be improved. How about: "Use psql's \dAo+ > > command to list operator families and tell which of their operators are > > marked as leak-proof."? Should something similar be added to [1] which > > also talks about leak-proof operators? > > I agree, so I fixed the sentence as your suggestion and also add the > same description to the planner-stats-security doc. > > > The rest is just formatting nitpicks: > > > > + ", ofs.opfname AS \"%s\"\n," > > > > The trailing comma should come before the newline. > > > > + " CASE\n" > > + " WHEN p.proleakproof THEN '%s'\n" > > + " ELSE '%s'\n" > > + " END AS \"%s\"\n", > > > > WHEN/ELSE/END should be intended with one additional space to be > > consistent with the other CASE expressions in this query. > > Fixed both. > > Regards, > Yugo Nagata > > > > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/planner-stats-security.html > > > > -- > > Erik > > > -- > Yugo NAGATA <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> -- Erik
