Re: row_security GUC does not behave as documented

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2016, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The fine manual says that when row_security is set to off, "queries fail
>> which would otherwise apply at least one policy". However, a look at
>> check_enable_rls() says that that is a true statement only when the user
>> is not table owner. If the user *is* table owner, turning off
>> row_security seems to amount to just silently disabling RLS, even for
>> tables with FORCE ROW LEVEL SECURITY.
>>
>> I am not sure if this is a documentation bug or a code bug, but it
>> sure looks to be one or the other.

> The original reason for changing how row_security works was to avoid a
> change in behavior based on a GUC changing. As such, I'm thinking that has
> to be a code bug, as otherwise it would be a behavior change due to a GUC
> being changed in the FORCE RLS case for table owners.

Well, I tried changing the code to act the way I gather it should, and
it breaks a whole bunch of regression test cases. See attached.

regards, tom lane