Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uxXME-00FPCo-5D for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 13 Sep 2025 21:00:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uxXMB-006WqR-Rw for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 13 Sep 2025 21:00:28 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uxXMB-006WqI-HF for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 13 Sep 2025 21:00:28 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1uxXM8-000dyt-1j for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Sat, 13 Sep 2025 21:00:28 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 58DL0KLn296007; Sat, 13 Sep 2025 17:00:21 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Laurenz Albe cc: Dominique Devienne , pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Latest patches break one of our unit-test, related to RLS In-reply-to: References: <77a63548783dd4007ee479a4c5ed300629aaa776.camel@cybertec.at> <2109533.1757686026@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2c58dcdba889f5b28df5ad9d21b5ea2d0ac63a9a.camel@cybertec.at> <2673230.1757722323@sss.pgh.pa.us> <501ee89ad54184804d14b416781dafd340c789d3.camel@cybertec.at> <2683918.1757728397@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Laurenz Albe message dated "Sat, 13 Sep 2025 11:11:42 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <296005.1757797220.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2025 17:00:20 -0400 Message-ID: <296006.1757797220@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Laurenz Albe writes: > I came up with the attached patch set. I did some more work on the comments, adjusted a couple of places that could be simplified, and pushed it. > I used two separate patches for clarity and ease of review, but both > should get backpatched. I didn't really love the "fix it and then explain it afterward" approach. It's hard to review a patch if you don't understand the logic. I considered swapping the order of the two patches, but eventually just merged them into one. regards, tom lane