Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
>>OK, that makes more sense now. But why isn't table2 also in the rule
>>query's rtable?
>
> It is, but you errored out before getting to it.
The fog has finally started lifting, I think.
Why wouldn't we force checkAsUser to the rule owner in the copied RTEs,
similar to the rest of the rule query? It makes sense in that the rule
query could possibly use the RTE (although as you pointed out it doesn't
in this case), and therefore the permission check should be the same, no?
Joe