Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE and RLS

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Whoa, hang on. I think you're being a bit quick to dismiss that
> example. Why shouldn't I want an upsert where the majority of the
> table columns follow the usual "make it so" pattern of an upsert, but
> there is also this kind of audit column to be maintained? Then I would
> write something like
>
> INSERT INTO tbl (<some values>, 0)
> ON CONFLICT UPDATE SET <same values>, mod_count=mod_count+1;
>
> The root of the problem is the way that you're proposing to combine
> the RLS policies (using AND), which runs contrary to the way RLS
> policies are usually combined (using OR), which is why this kind of
> example fails -- RLS policies in general aren't intended to all be
> true simultaneously.

In case I wasn't clear, I'm proposing that we AND together the already
OR'd together UPDATE and INSERT quals.

--
Peter Geoghegan