On Mon, 2023-11-13 at 12:57 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 7:43 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> wrote: > > So, from my perspective, we should never have let FOR SELECT policies > > mess with an UPDATE. But I am too late for that; such a change would > > be way too invasive now. So I'd like to introduce a "back door" by > > creating a FOR SELECT policy with WITH CHECK (TRUE). > > In principle I see no problem with some kind of back door here, but > that seems like it might not be the right way to do it. I don't think > we want constant true to behave arbitrarily differently than any other > expression. Maybe that's not what you had in mind and I'm just not > seeing the full picture, though.
I experimented some more, and I think I see my mistake now. Currently, the USING clause of FOR SELECT/ALL/UPDATE policies is an *additional* restriction to the WITH CHECK clause. So my suggestion of using the WITH CHECK clause *instead of* the USING clause in FOR SELECT policies would be unprincipled. Sorry for the noise. Yours, Laurenz Albe
