Re: [PATCH] refactor ATExec{En,Dis}ableRowSecurity

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] refactor ATExec{En,Dis}ableRowSecurity
Date: 2021-03-01 06:30:44
Message-ID: YDyKFHfCxTCvH/P5@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 02:27:44PM -0800, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> For 0002-Further-refactoring.patch, should there be assertion
> inside ATExecSetRowSecurity() on the values for rls and force_rls ?
> There could be 3 possible values: -1, 0 and 1.

0001 is a clean simplification and a good catch, so I'll see about
applying it. 0002 just makes the code more confusing to the reader
IMO, and its interface could easily lead to unwanted errors.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2021-03-01 06:31:23 Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...)
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2021-03-01 06:17:40 Re: doc review for v14