Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments
to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments
following #endif to not obey the general rule.
Commit e3860ffa4d wasn't actually using
the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that
tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of
code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be
moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's
code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops
in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working
in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the
net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed
one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves
more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such
cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after
the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after.
Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same
as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else.
That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage
from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
We have had support for restrictive RLS policies since 9.5, but they
were only available through extensions which use the appropriate hooks.
This adds support into the grammer, catalog, psql and pg_dump for
restrictive RLS policies, thus reducing the cases where an extension is
necessary.
In passing, also move away from using "AND"d and "OR"d in comments.
As pointed out by Alvaro, it's not really appropriate to attempt
to make verbs out of "AND" and "OR", so reword those comments which
attempted to.
Reviewed By: Jeevan Chalke, Dean Rasheed
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20160901063404.GY4028@tamriel.snowman.net
Fix unsafe coding around PG_TRY in RelationBuildRowSecurity: can't change
a variable inside PG_TRY and then use it in PG_CATCH without marking it
"volatile". In this case though it seems saner to avoid that by doing
a single assignment before entering the TRY block.
I started out just intending to fix that, but the more I looked at the
row-security code the more distressed I got. This patch also fixes
incorrect construction of the RowSecurityPolicy cache entries (there was
not sufficient care taken to copy pass-by-ref data into the cache memory
context) and a whole bunch of sloppiness around the definition and use of
pg_policy.polcmd. You can't use nulls in that column because initdb will
mark it NOT NULL --- and I see no particular reason why a null entry would
be a good idea anyway, so changing initdb's behavior is not the right
answer. The internal value of '\0' wouldn't be suitable in a "char" column
either, so after a bit of thought I settled on using '*' to represent ALL.
Chasing those changes down also revealed that somebody wasn't paying
attention to what the underlying values of ACL_UPDATE_CHR etc really were,
and there was a great deal of lackadaiscalness in the catalogs.sgml
documentation for pg_policy and pg_policies too.
This doesn't pretend to be a complete code review for the row-security
stuff, it just fixes the things that were in my face while dealing with
the bugs in RelationBuildRowSecurity.
As pointed out by Robert, we should really have named pg_rowsecurity
pg_policy, as the objects stored in that catalog are policies. This
patch fixes that and updates the column names to start with 'pol' to
match the new catalog name.
The security consideration for COPY with row level security, also
pointed out by Robert, has also been addressed by remembering and
re-checking the OID of the relation initially referenced during COPY
processing, to make sure it hasn't changed under us by the time we
finish planning out the query which has been built.
Robert and Alvaro also commented on missing OCLASS and OBJECT entries
for POLICY (formerly ROWSECURITY or POLICY, depending) in various
places. This patch fixes that too, which also happens to add the
ability to COMMENT on policies.
In passing, attempt to improve the consistency of messages, comments,
and documentation as well. This removes various incarnations of
'row-security', 'row-level security', 'Row-security', etc, in favor
of 'policy', 'row level security' or 'row_security' as appropriate.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian
Stephen Frost