Re: row_security GUC, BYPASSRLS

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>> It also requires a DBA unwilling to
>> furnish test accounts to custodians of sensitive data.  With or without
>> row_security=force, such a team is on the outer perimeter of the audience able
>> to benefit from RLS.  Nonetheless, I'd welcome a replacement test aid.

> I can't argue with that, I suppose, but I think row_security=force is
> a pretty useful convenience.  If we must remove it, so be it, but I'd
> be a little sad.

Keep in mind that if you have an uncooperative DBA on your production
system, you can always test your policy to your heart's content on a
playpen installation.  In fact, most people would consider that good
engineering practice anyway, rather than pushing untested code directly
into production.
        regards, tom lane