Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dKPfY-0000f6-Va for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:46:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dKPfY-0001K5-7F for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:46:12 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dKPfX-0001Jw-Sb for pgsql-committers@postgresql.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:46:12 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dKPfV-0001ow-MY for pgsql-committers@postgresql.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:46:10 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v5CDk49o007445; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:46:05 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Amit Langote cc: Joe Conway , pgsql-committers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: pgsql: Apply RLS policies to partitioned tables. In-reply-to: <89e6ae66-96ee-b6eb-7195-d88dbb988f2f@lab.ntt.co.jp> References: <10974.1497227727@sss.pgh.pa.us> <0c5b8b18-262d-de09-50e1-6cf4815d74ab@joeconway.com> <25990.1497235885@sss.pgh.pa.us> <89e6ae66-96ee-b6eb-7195-d88dbb988f2f@lab.ntt.co.jp> Comments: In-reply-to Amit Langote message dated "Mon, 12 Jun 2017 15:48:09 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7443.1497275164.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:46:04 -0400 Message-ID: <7444.1497275164@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-committers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-committers-owner@postgresql.org Amit Langote writes: > How about something like the attached? The patch makes > mtstate->mt_plans[0] to be passed for all invocations of ExecInitQual() on > WithCheckOption.qual that is being initialized for each partition. Well, the question then is whether that behaves correctly. Where it would matter is if the WCO qual contains a SubPlan, because you'd be adding multiple instances of the subplan to the PlanState's list. I think it's probably all right, but it might be wise to add a test case where there is such a subplan. Spacing and comment wording seem a bit random in this, too. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers