On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> Dean,
>
> * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com) wrote:
>> A minor point -- this comment isn't quite right:
>
> Fixed.
>
>> because the policies that are fetched there are only used for
>> add_security_quals(), not for add_with_check_options(). It might be
>> cleaner if the 'if' statement that follows were merged with the
>> identical one a few lines down, and then those returning policies
>> could be local to that block, with the 2 pieces of RETURNING handling
>> done together. Similarly for the upsert block.
>
> Done.
>
>> Actually, it isn't necessary to test that rt_index ==
>> root->resultRelation, because for all other relations commandType is
>> set to CMD_SELECT higher up, so the 'returning' bool variable could
>> just be replaced with 'root->returningList != NIL' throughout.
>
> Done.
>
> Updated patch attached for review.
>
> Unless there are other concerns or issues raised, I'll push this later
> today.
So does this mean that the first RLS open item is addressed? If so,
can it be moved to the "resolved after 9.5alpha2" section? Based on
commit 4f3b2a8883c47b6710152a8e157f8a02656d0e68 I *think* yes but...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
