| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bug: RLS policy FOR SELECT is used to check new rows |
| Date: | 2023-11-13 17:57:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZZOf1SwK25U=B9_X8RYE681PYm1Phen1uQ5tiLhCW=kg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 7:43 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> So, from my perspective, we should never have let FOR SELECT policies
> mess with an UPDATE. But I am too late for that; such a change would
> be way too invasive now. So I'd like to introduce a "back door" by
> creating a FOR SELECT policy with WITH CHECK (TRUE).
In principle I see no problem with some kind of back door here, but
that seems like it might not be the right way to do it. I don't think
we want constant true to behave arbitrarily differently than any other
expression. Maybe that's not what you had in mind and I'm just not
seeing the full picture, though.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-11-13 18:01:32 | Re: Question about non-blocking mode in libpq |
| Previous Message | Adam Hendel | 2023-11-13 17:55:07 | [PATCH] pgbench log file headers |