| From: | Ayush Tiwari <ayushtiwari(dot)slg01(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(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 18:17:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAJTYsWV2wkuY27B9s9pSRFzr+cX259+tL0XMcSrpxkCuQwL3rA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 at 23:36, Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>
wrote:
> > 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.
>
I had reviewed v1 and it looked good to me, assuming v2
changes just added the RLS policies documentation update, the patch
addresses my concern and looks good to me!
Regards,
Ayush
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Jones | 2026-07-02 18:47:48 | Re: Truncate logs by max_log_size |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-07-02 18:11:06 | Re: bump minimum supported version of psql and pg_{dump,dumpall,upgrade} to v10 |