On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I'm can't see how the current code can do anything sensible at all. What
> do you think is going to be the effect of an excluded row that doesn't
> meet security quals? Even if it worked in the sense that the correct
> data were accessed and every - which I doubt is completely the case as
> things stands given there's no actual scan node and stuff - you'd still
> have EXCLUDED.* being used in the projection for the new version of the
> tuple.
>
> As far as I can see the only correct thing you could do in that
> situation is error out.
I agree. I wasn't defending the current code (although that might have
been made unclear by the "technically wasn't a bug" remark).
Note that I'm not telling you what I think needs to happen. I'm just
explaining my understanding of what has happened.
--
Peter Geoghegan
