Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > On Sunday, January 3, 2016, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> The fine manual says that when row_security is set to off, "queries fail
> >> which would otherwise apply at least one policy". However, a look at
> >> check_enable_rls() says that that is a true statement only when the user
> >> is not table owner. If the user *is* table owner, turning off
> >> row_security seems to amount to just silently disabling RLS, even for
> >> tables with FORCE ROW LEVEL SECURITY.
> >>
> >> I am not sure if this is a documentation bug or a code bug, but it
> >> sure looks to be one or the other.
>
> > The original reason for changing how row_security works was to avoid a
> > change in behavior based on a GUC changing. As such, I'm thinking that has
> > to be a code bug, as otherwise it would be a behavior change due to a GUC
> > being changed in the FORCE RLS case for table owners.
>
> Well, I tried changing the code to act the way I gather it should, and
> it breaks a whole bunch of regression test cases. See attached.
I think this means we need to postpone 9.5.0 for a week.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
