Instead of deleting account, NYT appends ‘1000’ to username and email address

Re:Instead of deleting account, NYT appends ‘1000’ to userna... by latch on Tuesday April 28, 2020 @12:29PM (#23008640)

You can use row level security so that forgetting the filter isn't an issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Instead of deleting account, NYT appends ‘1000’ to userna... by dorgo on Tuesday April 28, 2020 @01:19PM (#23009288)

as far as I understand this would only work for users who don't have access to "deleted" rows. Are access rules a good way to handle this? Serious question. My solution would be to have views as "guards" for every table.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Instead of deleting account, NYT appends ‘1000’ to userna... by latch on Tuesday April 28, 2020 @07:06PM (#23013219)

Views also work.

I don't understand what you mean re "access". RLS is what removes access to those rows, that's the point of RLS.

In postgresql, anyways, superusers aren't subject to RLS and the table owner, by default, isn't either. But RLS can be enforced for the table owner by a single alter statement.

[ Parent | on HN ]