Marc Munro <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 22:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> An RLS policy is a table "subsidiary object" so it only depends indirectly >> on the extension that owns the table. > Yep, I get that, and I see the dependency chain in the catalog. > However an extension can create the table with or without the policy, > and a table created by an extension without policy can later have a > policy added, and, unless I'm missing something, the same dependency > chain exists in either case. > This means that I cannot tell whether the policy was added by the > extension or not. I can't get very excited about that, since the same argument could be made about triggers, indexes, or rules attached to a table, but no one has yet complained about those cases. It's fairly hard to see the use-case where it matters, anyway. If you're attaching policies to tables owned by an extension after-the-fact, you're modifying the definition of an extension-owned object, which is at best really poor practice. We say up-front that you cannot expect the extension mechanism to track the effects of such changes. regards, tom lane
