| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Latest patches break one of our unit-test, related to RLS |
| Date: | 2025-09-13 22:38:10 |
| Message-ID: | b45e9824dfce57e6d8b5a858a4827959352b6fc5.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, 2025-09-13 at 17:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> > I came up with the attached patch set.
>
> I did some more work on the comments, adjusted a couple of places that
> could be simplified, and pushed it.
Thank you!
> > I used two separate patches for clarity and ease of review, but both
> > should get backpatched.
>
> I didn't really love the "fix it and then explain it afterward"
> approach. It's hard to review a patch if you don't understand the
> logic. I considered swapping the order of the two patches, but
> eventually just merged them into one.
Yes, having the refactoring patch first might have been better.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pawel Kudzia | 2025-09-14 08:30:17 | Silent data corruption in PostgreSQL 17 - how to detect it proactively? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-09-13 21:00:20 | Re: Latest patches break one of our unit-test, related to RLS |