Re: [HACKERS] WITH CHECK OPTION bug [was RLS Design]

2014-09-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote: Yeah OK, fair point. Here are some tests that cover that code path. I've also thrown in a test with prepared statements, although that case was already working, it seemed worth checking. Applied and backpatched, thanks! Stephen

Re: [HACKERS] WITH CHECK OPTION bug [was RLS Design]

2014-09-21 Thread Dean Rasheed
On 20 September 2014 14:08, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote: Fortunately it looks pretty trivial though. The patch attached fixes the above test cases. Obviously this needs to be fixed in 9.4 and

Re: [HACKERS] WITH CHECK OPTION bug [was RLS Design]

2014-09-21 Thread Stephen Frost
Dean, * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote: On 20 September 2014 14:08, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote: Fortunately it looks pretty trivial though. The patch attached fixes the

Re: [HACKERS] WITH CHECK OPTION bug [was RLS Design]

2014-09-20 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote: Fortunately it looks pretty trivial though. The patch attached fixes the above test cases. Obviously this needs to be fixed in 9.4 and HEAD. Wouldn't it be better if bundled with some regression tests? -- Michael