| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <joe(dot)conway(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, 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 21:04:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20150729210458.GM2441@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Joe Conway <joe(dot)conway(at)crunchydata(dot)com> wrote:
> > 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"
>
> Awkward. The "in policies in" phrasing is just hard to read.
Yeah. Besides, it's not really the same thing.
> Why not just "in policy expressions"? There's no third kind that does
> allow these.
WFM
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-07-29 21:08:55 | Re: Remaining 'needs review' patchs in July commitfest |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-07-29 20:59:52 | Re: more RLS oversights |