The fine manual says that when row_security is set to off, "queries fail
which would otherwise apply at least one policy". However, a look at
check_enable_rls() says that that is a true statement only when the user
is not table owner. If the user *is* table owner, turning off
row_security seems
Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > On Sunday, January 3, 2016, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The fine manual says that when row_security is set to off, "queries fail
> >> which would otherwise apply at least one policy". However, a look at
> >>
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > On Sunday, January 3, 2016, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The fine manual says that when row_security is set to off, "queries fail
> >> which would otherwise apply at least one policy". However, a
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, I tried changing the code to act the way I gather it should, and
>> it breaks a whole bunch of regression test cases. See attached.
> I think this means we need to postpone 9.5.0 for a week.
I think the regression
Tom,
On Sunday, January 3, 2016, Tom Lane wrote:
> The fine manual says that when row_security is set to off, "queries fail
> which would otherwise apply at least one policy". However, a look at
> check_enable_rls() says that that is a true statement only when the user
> is
Stephen Frost writes:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2016, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The fine manual says that when row_security is set to off, "queries fail
>> which would otherwise apply at least one policy". However, a look at
>> check_enable_rls() says that that is
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost 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
Stephen Frost 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