Message-ID: <b45e9824dfce57e6d8b5a858a4827959352b6fc5.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: Latest patches break one of our unit-test, related to RLS
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 00:38:10 +0200
In-Reply-To: <296006.1757797220@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: 
	<CAFCRh-8NwJd0jq6P=R3qhHyqU7hw0BTor3W0SvUcii24et+zAw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAFCRh-93hsRvoJqQCwXq06=AJJJ_s783gVsGHKc-QjgOO6jGVg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <77a63548783dd4007ee479a4c5ed300629aaa776.camel@cybertec.at>
	 <CAFCRh--DPWEHpRmdr-Jfw4guYqjc9TM_QyVH7SR4B=Le5gGe3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAFCRh--M1y2YpJJMb6undzvyvhd4geKtRWFkDyr1shHvvoOkpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAFCRh-_OBKtabe8MO0vUocNSq_O3_b852AXknPiNhL0tNUBGQg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAFCRh-_U+8fmRoc-sYM5ahp=9dNjs=Dri1LFLcHCgEJX8Zq_oA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <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>
	 <b6fd9d698792d570e1e45117d44e72d19104fcc1.camel@cybertec.at>
	 <296006.1757797220@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-2.fc42) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b45e9824dfce57e6d8b5a858a4827959352b6fc5.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 2025-09-13 at 17:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:
> > I came up with the attached patch set.
>=20
> I did some more work on the comments, adjusted a couple of places that
> could be simplified, and pushed it.

Thank you!

> > I used two separate patches for clarity and ease of review, but both
> > should get backpatched.
>=20
> I didn't really love the "fix it and then explain it afterward"
> approach.=C2=A0 It's hard to review a patch if you don't understand the
> logic.=C2=A0 I considered swapping the order of the two patches, but
> eventually just merged them into one.

Yes, having the refactoring patch first might have been better.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe