On Tue, 2023-10-24 at 11:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm fairly sure that it was intentional, but I don't recall the > reasoning; perhaps Stephen does. In any case, I grasp your point > that maybe we should distinguish RETURNING from not-RETURNING cases.
Perhaps the idea is that if there are constraints involved, the failure
or success of an INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE could leak information that you
don't have privileges to read.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
