On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > Dean, > > * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote: >> A minor point -- this comment isn't quite right: > > Fixed. > >> because the policies that are fetched there are only used for >> add_security_quals(), not for add_with_check_options(). It might be >> cleaner if the 'if' statement that follows were merged with the >> identical one a few lines down, and then those returning policies >> could be local to that block, with the 2 pieces of RETURNING handling >> done together. Similarly for the upsert block. > > Done. > >> Actually, it isn't necessary to test that rt_index == >> root->resultRelation, because for all other relations commandType is >> set to CMD_SELECT higher up, so the 'returning' bool variable could >> just be replaced with 'root->returningList != NIL' throughout. > > Done. > > Updated patch attached for review. > > Unless there are other concerns or issues raised, I'll push this later > today.
So does this mean that the first RLS open item is addressed? If so, can it be moved to the "resolved after 9.5alpha2" section? Based on commit 4f3b2a8883c47b6710152a8e157f8a02656d0e68 I *think* yes but... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers