> On Jul 3, 2026, at 02:06, Paul A Jungwirth <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Is this the right way to do these checks? I'll try to look into it a >> bit more today, but does this cause problems when an UPDATE *doesn't* >> create leftovers? > > I did some extra testing but couldn't find any problems. I looked at > INSERT policies when FOR PORTION OF exactly matches a row's bounds (so > the row is updated but there are no leftovers), and also INSERT > policies that include sublinks. > >> We should update the documentation as well. I think it should point >> out the contrast between ACLs and RLS here. > > Here is a v2 with a couple lines of documentation added. > > Yours, > > -- > Paul ~{:-) > [email protected] > <v2-0001-Fix-RLS-checks-for-FOR-PORTION-OF-leftover-rows.patch>
Thanks for testing and updating the doc. I agree the docs need to be updated. I’d rephrase this a little bit: ``` RLS policies for inserting temporal leftovers are still checked. ``` Only INSERT policies will be checked, so I changed it to: ``` Row-level security INSERT policies are still checked for these leftover inserts. ``` PFA v3, only this tiny doc change. Best regards, -- Chao Li (Evan) HighGo Software Co., Ltd. https://www.highgo.com/
v3-0001-Fix-RLS-checks-for-FOR-PORTION-OF-leftover-rows.patch
Description: Binary data
