* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > As we don't want to end up with the same behavior-change-due-to-GUC that > > we had with the original row_security implementation, we should change > > the code as your patch does and update the regression tests accordingly. > > I think probably the tests need some adjustment rather than just stuffing > in the new results; but I'm unsure what's most appropriate.
Right, the comments, at least, need to be updated to be correct. > > Perhaps the error code thrown could be tailored a bit when it's the > > owner, to indicate that FORCE RLS has been set on the table, but I'm not > > sure it's really a big deal either way. > > Yeah, the error message seemed less than apropos to me too; but on the > other hand there's an argument that FORCE RLS means "treat me just like > everybody else". Agreed. > One idea would be to use the same primary error message either way, > but add a DETAIL or HINT mentioning FORCE RLS if it's the table owner. Having a detail or hint which indicates that seems like a great approach to me. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature