| From: | Joe Conway <joe(dot)conway(at)crunchydata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: more RLS oversights |
| Date: | 2015-07-29 20:57:21 |
| Message-ID: | 55B93E31.6060300@crunchydata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/29/2015 01:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think this reads a bit funny. What's a "POLICY USING" clause? I
>> expect that translators will treat the two words POLICY USING as a
>> single token, and the result is not going to make any sense.
>>
>> Maybe "in a policy's USING and WITH CHECK expressions", or perhaps "in
>> policies's USING and WITH CHECK exprs", not sure.
>
> Yeah, I don't see why we would capitalize POLICY there.
The equivalent message for functions is:
".. are not allowed in functions in FROM"
So how does this sound:
"... are not allowed in policies in USING and WITH CHECK expressions"
or perhaps more simply:
"... are not allowed in policies in USING and WITH CHECK"
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-07-29 20:59:03 | Re: dblink: add polymorphic functions. |
| Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2015-07-29 20:54:55 | Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump |