Re: Per-role disabling of LEAKPROOF requirements for row-level security?

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Andreas Lind <andreaslindpetersen(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Per-role disabling of LEAKPROOF requirements for row-level security?
Date: 2025-06-16 21:30:25
Message-ID: aFCM8QuMUArmY819@nathan
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 01:36:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> There might be a genuine hazard if something thinks it can substitute
> use of enum_cmp for enum_eq, as indeed would happen in e.g. mergejoin.

Hm. Wouldn't that be a mergejoin bug? I guess I'm not sure how to
reconcile the leakproof criteria in the documentation with the idea that
we can't mark a suite of functions as leakproof if any individual one isn't
leakproof.

--
nathan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2025-06-16 22:14:19 Re: Improve CRC32C performance on SSE4.2
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2025-06-16 21:17:26 Re: Allow pg_dump --statistics-only to dump foreign table statistics?