From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>,
        "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Add support for restrictive RLS policies
In-reply-to: <20160909141542.GB4028@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20160908183544.GU4028@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <20160908192157.GA53172@alvherre.pgsql>
 <20160908200912.GW4028@tamriel.snowman.net> <5611.1473369685@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20160909141542.GB4028@tamriel.snowman.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
	message dated "Fri, 09 Sep 2016 10:15:43 -0400"
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2016 10:42:27 -0400
Message-ID: <21661.1473432147@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> I saw the various list-based cases and commented in my reply (the one you
> quote part of above) why those didn't seem to make sense for this case
> (it's not a list and I don't see it ever growing into one).

I think Alvaro was simply questioning whether there would ever be a need
for more than two alternatives.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers