Re: row_security GUC does not behave as documented

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> As we don't want to end up with the same behavior-change-due-to-GUC that
> we had with the original row_security implementation, we should change
> the code as your patch does and update the regression tests accordingly.

I think probably the tests need some adjustment rather than just stuffing
in the new results; but I'm unsure what's most appropriate.

> Perhaps the error code thrown could be tailored a bit when it's the
> owner, to indicate that FORCE RLS has been set on the table, but I'm not
> sure it's really a big deal either way.

Yeah, the error message seemed less than apropos to me too; but on the
other hand there's an argument that FORCE RLS means "treat me just like
everybody else".

One idea would be to use the same primary error message either way,
but add a DETAIL or HINT mentioning FORCE RLS if it's the table owner.

regards, tom lane