| From: | Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ayush Tiwari <ayushtiwari(dot)slg01(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix RLS checks for UPDATE/DELETE FOR PORTION OF leftover rows |
| Date: | 2026-07-02 18:06:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+renyWYcQ=Yc1zQJ2UzLDF2cdHBHto-dRHw9s9EAA111ApEqQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Is this the right way to do these checks? I'll try to look into it a
> bit more today, but does this cause problems when an UPDATE *doesn't*
> create leftovers?
I did some extra testing but couldn't find any problems. I looked at
INSERT policies when FOR PORTION OF exactly matches a row's bounds (so
the row is updated but there are no leftovers), and also INSERT
policies that include sublinks.
> We should update the documentation as well. I think it should point
> out the contrast between ACLs and RLS here.
Here is a v2 with a couple lines of documentation added.
Yours,
--
Paul ~{:-)
pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Fix-RLS-checks-for-FOR-PORTION-OF-leftover-rows.patch | application/octet-stream | 9.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | surya poondla | 2026-07-02 18:09:44 | Re: psql: Fix \df tab completion for procedures |
| Previous Message | surya poondla | 2026-07-02 17:59:08 | Re: Fix XLogFileReadAnyTLI silently applying divergent WAL from wrong timeline |