Re: Row security violation error is misleading

From: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Row security violation error is misleading
Date: 2015-04-25 07:37:42
Message-ID: CAEZATCW0riymCOUyf0hXzvrQrC-0PUmPKx-5tYVd8k2rx1tt7w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 25 April 2015 at 01:52, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Dean Rasheed (dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> The second patch [2] is the one that is actually relevant to this
>> thread. This patch is primarily to apply the RLS checks earlier,
>> before an update is attempted, more like a regular permissions check.
>> This adds a new enum to classify the kinds of WCO, a side benefit of
>> which is that it allows different error messages when RLS checks are
>> violated, as opposed to WITH CHECK OPTIONs on views.
>
> I've gone ahead and pushed this, please take a look and test it and let
> me know if you see any issues or have any questions or concerns.
>

Brilliant, thanks! I gave it a quick read-through and all the changes
look good, so thanks for all your work on this.

Regards,
Dean

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-04-25 09:01:14 INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2015-04-25 07:23:01 Re: adding more information about process(es) cpu and memory usage