On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 08:58:22AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote: > I don't know if the omission to check for identical PERMISSIVE or > RESTRICTIVE settings can lead to real problems, but I feel that it > violates the promise of the function. So I am +1 on this change.
That does not make sense here, two policies with a different polpermissive are not the same, or am I missing something? That just looks like a hole coming from 093129c9d9fc where the field has been added. Here is the thread related to this commit, without the relcache part being mentioned: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160901063404.GY4028%40tamriel.snowman.net -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
