Re: pgsql: RLS refactoring

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> It looks to me like this changed the representation of stored rules, so it
> >> should have included a catversion bump.  This is particularly relevant to
> >> the 9.5 branch where people already have alpha installations.
>
> > I had considererd if a bump was needed and figured it wasn't.
>
> > I don't mind doing a bump if we feel it's necessary and maybe I'm
> > missing that there's a way to cause that node type to end up in the
> > catalog, but I don't think so, as we only ever build WithCheckOption
> > nodes in the rewriter.
>
> Oh, I see.  In that case you should remove WithCheckOption from the set of
> node types supported by readfuncs.c, both because it's dead code and to
> clarify that the node is not meant to ever end up on disk.

Yeah, I was just thinking the same.

> (outfuncs.c support is useful for debugging though, so keep that.)

Right, makes sense.

I should be able to get to that tomorrow afternoon, til then I'm pretty
tied up with PostgresOpen.

Thanks!

Stephen