From: | George <pinkisntwell(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Index is not used for "IN (non-correlated subquery)" |
Date: | 2016-11-30 20:08:36 |
Message-ID: | CAO=sJoUbTWxtmQvkBHVpE11fW9q9+cvosEb4_KvM=Yt=kfCBew@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:05 AM, George <pinkisntwell(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> So there is definitely something wrong here. This situation makes many
>>> row-level security use cases cumbersome since you need to have
>>> almost the same WHERE clause both in the row-level security policy and
>>> in every SELECT query in order for the index to be used.
>
>> can you give EXPLAIN ANALYZE for the 'good' query and the 'bad' query?
>
> Planning for queries affected by RLS is definitely an area where we need
> to improve (I'm working on a patch for that). Whether the OP's particular
> query is being hit by that is impossible to tell, though, since there
> isn't any actual RLS usage in the doubtless-oversimplified example.
The example is not over-simplified, I basically just took the clause
that the RLS would have to add and stuck it in the WHERE. Thus I
verified that even the normal, non-RLS planner is affected.
When I get to work tomorrow morning (Europe) I will post the EXPLAIN
ANALYZE output.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John R Pierce | 2016-11-30 20:10:56 | Re: Monitoring Replication - Postgres 9.2 |
Previous Message | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais | 2016-11-30 20:08:14 | Re: PostgreSQl HA solution |