* Jonah H. Harris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Is anyone going to be working on this immediately? If so, I'd be glad > to work with someone. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to devote to > taking something this big on, but I think it would be a really great > thing to have. Just let me know [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks!
It strikes me as slightly unlikely that anyone will start working on
this immediately, but I can tell you it's something that some of my
users have been asking for and so once I finish off my current work on
roles I'll probably be interested in working on this.
Stephen
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >Added to TODO:
> >
> >* Add the features of packages
> > o Make private objects accessable only to objects in the same
> > schema
> > o Allow current_schema.objname to access current schema objects
> > o Add session variables
> > o Allow nested schemas
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> >
> >>OK, so it seems we need:
> >>
> >> o make private objects accessable only to objects
> >> in the same schema
> >> o Allow current_schema.objname to access current
> >> schema objects
> >> o session variables
> >> o nested schemas?
> >>
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>Dave Held wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 8:43 AM
> >>>>To: Thomas Hallgren
> >>>>Cc: Tom Lane; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> >>>>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Oracle Style packages on postgres
> >>>>
> >>>>[...]
> >>>>I suppose. I think we should focus on the use cases for Oracle
> >>>>packages, rather than the specific functionality it provides.
> >>>>What things do people need PostgreSQL to do that it already
> >>>>doesn't do?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Is that really the best way to go about things? Already RDBMSes
> >>>are patchwork quilts of functionality. Is merely adding another
> >>>patch the most elegant way to evolve the database? The problem is
> >>>that Oracle et al are trying to be ORDBMSes and aren't exactly sure
> >>>what the best way to go is. Instead of trying to formulate a
> >>>rational plan for what an ORDBMS should even look like, they simply
> >>>look at what would work with their existing infrastructure and tack
> >>>on features. Then Postgres plays the copycat game. Instead of
> >>>trying to play catch-up with Oracle, why not beat them at their own
> >>>game?
> >>>
> >>>What packages provide is encapsulation. Hiding the data from the
> >>>user and forcing him/her to use the public interface (methods).
> >>>That is an important and admirable OO feature. Some people think
> >>>that using the DB's security model can achieve the same thing. It
> >>>can't, exactly, but there's an important lesson to be learned from
> >>>the suggestion. The problem is that OOP is a *programming* paradigm,
> >>>and a database is not a *programming language*. In a programming
> >>>language, there really is no such thing as "security". There is
> >>>only "visibility" and "accessibility". Private methods in an OOP
> >>>language do not provide *security*; they only limit *accessibility*.
> >>>Like so many other differences between the relational model and the
> >>>OOP model, there is an impedance mismatch here. However, there is
> >>>also opportunity.
> >>>
> >>>In an OOPL, you can say: "Users can call this method from here, but
> >>>not from there." What you *can't* say is: "User X can call this
> >>>method, but User Y cannot." As you can see, these are orthogonal
> >>>concepts. You could call the first "accessibility by location" and
> >>>the second "accessibility by authentication". An ORDBMS should
> >>>support both. "Private" does not respect your identity, only your
> >>>calling location. An ACL does not respect your calling scope, only
> >>>your identity. A system that has both is clearly more flexible than
> >>>one that only has one or the other.
> >>>
> >>>Now what you need to keep in mind is that each visibility model
> >>>serves a different purpose. The purpose of a security model is to
> >>>limit *who* can see/touch certain data because the data has intrinsic
> >>>value. The purpose of an accessibility model is to limit *where* and
> >>>*how* data can be seen/touched in order to preserve *program
> >>>invariants*. So if you have an object (or tuple!) that records the
> >>>start and stop time of some process, it is probably a logical
> >>>invariant that the stop time is greater than or equal to the start
> >>>time. For this reason, in a PL, you would encapsulate these fields
> >>>(attributes) and only provide controlled access to update them that
> >>>checks and preserves the invariant, *no matter who you are*. You
> >>>don't want a superuser violating this invariant any more than Sue
> >>>User.
> >>>
> >>>Now you might object that constraints allow you to preserve
> >>>invariants as well, and indeed they do. But constraints do not
> >>>respect calling scope. Suppose there is a process that needs to
> >>>update the timestamps in a way that temporarily breaks the invariant
> >>>but restores it afterwards. The only way to effect this in a
> >>>constraint environment is to drop the constraint, perform the
> >>>operation, and restore it. However, dropping a constraint is not an
> >>>ideal solution because there may be other unprivileged processes
> >>>operating on the relation that still need the constraint to be
> >>>enforced. There is no way to say: "There is a priviledged class of
> >>>methods that is allowed to violate this constraint because they are
> >>>trusted to restore it upon completion." Note that this is different
> >>>from saying "There is a priviledged class of users that is allowed
> >>>to violate this constraint." If you try to do something like give
> >>>read-only access to everybody and only write access to one user and
> >>>define that user to be the owner of the methods that update the data,
> >>>you have to follow the convention that that user only operates
> >>>through the defined interface, and doesn't hack the data directly.
> >>>That's because user-level accessibility is not the same as scope-
> >>>level accessibility. Whereas, if you define something like a
> >>>package, and say: "Package X is allowed full and complete access
> >>>to relation Y", and stick the interface methods in X, you still have
> >>>all the user-level security you want while preserving the invariants
> >>>in the most elegant way.
> >>>
> >>>So you can think of a package as a scope in a programming language.
> >>>It's like a user, but it is not a user. A user has privileges that
> >>>cut across scopes. Now, whether packages should be different from
> >>>schemas is a whole different ballgame. The purpose of a schema in
> >>>Postgres is not entirely clear to me. There's lots of different ways
> >>>to use schemas, and there is no obvious best way to use them. In
> >>>order to implement the accessibility features of packages, schemas
> >>>would have to be changed considerably. Probably a lot of users would
> >>>be unhappy if schemas were changed in that way. My guess is that
> >>>this would not be a good idea.
> >>>
> >>>I think we can get some guidance from PLs. C++ is what you call a
> >>>"multi-paradigm language". You can do everything from assembly to
> >>>metaprogramming in C++. As such, it is very loose and open in some
> >>>respects. C++ has two kinds of scopes: it has classes and namespaces.
> >>>Members of a class are encapsulated and support data hiding. Members
> >>>of a namespace are only loosely grouped and do not support data hiding
> >>>explicitly. Namespaces exist primarily to avoid name collisions.
> >>>
> >>>Java, on the other hand, decided that for OOP purity, everything must
> >>>be a class. That would be like making schemas into packages and
> >>>imposing accessibility rules on them. At the end of the day, I think
> >>>many PL design experts agree that making everything a class is not
> >>>necessarily the best way to go.
> >>>
> >>>So schemas can be like C++ namespaces - they provide a means to
> >>>loosely group related objects and help avoid name collisions. So
> >>>the package could be like a class - they provide OOP-like
> >>>encapsulation via accessibility rules. However, that doesn't mean
> >>>that nested schemas wouldn't also be a good thing. In C++, nested
> >>>namespaces are extremely useful when one layer of scoping does not
> >>>sufficiently partition the namespace to avoid frequent name
> >>>collisions. I think the same is true of Postgres. I certainly would
> >>>like to be able to use nested schema names in several contexts.
> >>>Instead, I have to make a choice between making different schemas,
> >>>or making different name prefixes. I wouldn't even mind if nested
> >>>schemas were only allowed to contain schemas except at the leaves of
> >>>the tree. Another feature that is very useful is the "using clause".
> >>>Combined with nested namespaces, this is a very powerful way to give
> >>>programmers/dbas control over names. You can give everything the
> >>>most natural name, and just put it in the appropriate namespace,
> >>>and use the namespace that is relevant to the given task at hand.
> >>>
> >>>So consider this example:
> >>>
> >>>Tables:
> >>> etl.import.record
> >>> etl.export.record
> >>>
> >>>As you can imagine, I don't really want to make an 'import' and
> >>>'export' schema at the top level. There's several tables in
> >>>each schema, but that should illustrate the point. Then, when
> >>>constructing queries, it would be nice to be able to do this:
> >>>
> >>>USING etl.import
> >>> ;
> >>>SELECT *
> >>> FROM record
> >>> JOIN header ON ...
> >>> JOIN file ON ...
> >>> ;
> >>>
> >>>The effect of a USING clause would be to import the schema names
> >>>into the public namespace for the duration of the transaction. If
> >>>that leads to ambiguous names, then the parser/planner should emit an
> >>>error.
> >>>
> >>>__
> >>>David B. Held
> >>>Software Engineer/Array Services Group
> >>>200 14th Ave. East, Sartell, MN 56377
> >>>320.534.3637 320.253.7800 800.752.8129
> >>>
> >>>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >>>TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>--
> >> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> >> pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
> >> + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
> >> + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania
> >> 19073
> >>
> >>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >>TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> >> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
