From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org >> PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Odd behavior of updatable security barrier views on foreign tables |
Date: | 2015-03-01 17:28:22 |
Message-ID: | 20150301172822.GA29780@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Dean Rasheed (dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On 27 February 2015 at 03:10, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > On 2015/02/26 11:38, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >>
> >> I've pushed an update for this to master and 9.4 and improved the
> >> comments and the commit message as discussed.
> >>
> >> Would be great if you could test and let me know if you run into any
> >> issues!
> >
>
> I just spotted a trivial bug in this patch -- in
> expand_security_quals() you need to set targetRelation = false inside
> the loop, otherwise it will be true for the target relation and all
> that follow it. That was why the regression test output from
> rls.v4.patch on the other thread wasn't what I expected.
Wow, no, it's done at the entry to the function. I really thought that
was defined and initialized inside the foreach().. That was certainly
my intent.
Will fix, many thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-03-01 17:32:10 | Re: plpgsql versus domains |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-03-01 17:22:41 | Re: Odd behavior of updatable security barrier views on foreign tables |