Re: Row security violation error is misleading

On 25 April 2015 at 01:52, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Dean Rasheed (dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> The second patch [2] is the one that is actually relevant to this
>> thread. This patch is primarily to apply the RLS checks earlier,
>> before an update is attempted, more like a regular permissions check.
>> This adds a new enum to classify the kinds of WCO, a side benefit of
>> which is that it allows different error messages when RLS checks are
>> violated, as opposed to WITH CHECK OPTIONs on views.
>
> I've gone ahead and pushed this, please take a look and test it and let
> me know if you see any issues or have any questions or concerns.
>

Brilliant, thanks! I gave it a quick read-through and all the changes
look good, so thanks for all your work on this.

Regards,
Dean