Re: [BUGS] BUG #14682: row level security not work with partitioned table

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Mike Palmiotto <mike(dot)palmiotto(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, fte(at)nct(dot)ru, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14682: row level security not work with partitioned table
Date: 2017-06-09 21:52:17
Message-ID: 9a479aaa-202f-5d8f-fe89-442d80675d97@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On 06/09/2017 06:16 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 06/08/2017 11:09 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:45:20AM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2017 06:49 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote:
>>> > I ended up narrowing it down to 4 tables (one parent and 3 partitions)
>>> > in order to demonstrate policy sorting and order of RLS/partition
>>> > constraint checking. It should be much more straight-forward now, but
>>> > let me know if there are any further recommended changes.
>>>
>>> Thanks, will take a look towards the end of the day.
>>
>> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
>> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
>> update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
>> /message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
>
> I started reviewing the latest patch last night and will try to finish
> up this afternoon (west coast USA time).

I left the actual (2 line) code change untouched, but I tweaked the
regression test changes a bit. If there are no complaints I will push
tomorrow (Saturday).

Joe

--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Attachment Content-Type Size
add-rls-support-to-partitioned-tables-01.patch text/x-patch 29.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-06-09 22:43:00 Re: Invalid WAL segment size. Allowed values are 1,2,4,8,16,32,64
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2017-06-09 21:16:28 Re: BUG #14698: Little typo in the documentation

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2017-06-09 22:29:15 logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-06-09 21:33:45 Re: PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity