Dean, * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote: > On 21 April 2015 at 22:21, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 21 April 2015 at 20:50, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >> Thanks a lot for this. Please take a look at the attached. > > > > I've given this a quick read-through, and it looks good to me. The > > interaction of permissive and restrictive policies from hooks matches > > my expections, and it's a definite improvement having tests for RLS > > hooks. > > > > The only thing I spotted was that the file comment for > > test_rls_hooks.c needs updating. > > So re-reading this, I spotted what looks like another (pre-existing) > bug. In process_policies() there's a loop over all the policies, > collecting quals and with_check_quals, then a test at the end to use > the USING quals for the WITH CHECK quals if there were no > with_check_quals. I think we want to instead do that test inside the > loop -- i.e., for each policy, if there is no with_check_qual *for > that policy*, use it's USING qual instead.
Agreed, the USING -> WITH CHECK copy should be happening for all
policies independently, not wholesale at the end.
I've updated my tree and am testing.
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
