Greetings, On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 14:42 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 1:46 PM Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > > Perhaps the idea is that if there are constraints involved, the failure > > or success of an INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE could leak information that you > > don't have privileges to read. > > My recollection of this topic is pretty hazy, but like Tom, I seem to > remember it being intentional, and I think the reason had something to > do with wanting the slice of a RLS-protect table that you can see to > feel like a complete table. When you update a row in a table all of > which is visible to you, the updated row can never vanish as a result > of that update, so it was thought, if I remember correctly, that this > should also be true here. It's also similar to what happens if an > updatable view has WITH CHECK OPTION, and I think that was part of the > precedent as well. I don't know whether or not the constraint issue > that you mention here was also part of the concern, but it may have > been. This was all quite a while ago... Yes, having it be similar to a view WITH CHECK OPTION was intentional, also on not wishing for things to be able to disappear or to not get saved. The risk of a constraint possibly causing the leak of information is better than either having data just thrown away or having the constraint not provide the guarantee it’s supposed to … Thanks, Stephen (On my phone at an event currently, sorry for not digging in deeper on this..) >
