BUG #17549: wrong index scan plan with RLS
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 17549
Logged by: Zhao Rui
Email address: 875941708@qq.com
PostgreSQL version: 14.4
Operating system: All
Description:
You can reproduce in this way:
create table abc (a integer, b text);
insert into abc select (random()*(10^4))::integer, (random()*(10^4))::text
from generate_series(1,100000);
create index on abc(a, lower(b));
ALTER TABLE abc enable ROW LEVEL SECURITY;
ALTER TABLE abc FORCE ROW LEVEL SECURITY;
CREATE POLICY abc_id_iso_ply on abc to CURRENT_USER USING (a =
(current_setting('app.a'::text))::int);
# for bypass user, index scan works fine
explain analyse select * from abc where a=1 and lower(b)='1234';
Index Scan using abc_a_lower_idx on abc
Index Cond: ((a = 1) AND (lower(b) = '1234'::text))
# for RLS user, index scan can only use column a, and filter by lower(b)
set app.a=1;
explain analyse select * from abc where a=1 and lower(b)='1234';
Index Scan using abc_a_lower_idx on abc
Index Cond: (a = 1)
Filter: (lower(b) = '1234'::text)
This only occurs when using non-leak-proof functional index. Everything
works fine in following way:
create index on abc(a, b);
explain analyse select * from abc where a=1 and b='1234';
I think crucial function is restriction_is_securely_promotable. Maybe it is
too strict to reject normal clause match.
Could you please recheck RLS with functional index?
PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
# for RLS user, index scan can only use column a, and filter by lower(b)
set app.a=1;
explain analyse select * from abc where a=1 and lower(b)='1234';
Index Scan using abc_a_lower_idx on abc
Index Cond: (a = 1)
Filter: (lower(b) = '1234'::text)
AFAICS this is operating as designed. It's unsafe to apply the
non-leakproof condition until we've verified that the row has a = 1.
In the particular case shown here, it might be all right to do it,
but cases such as bitmap indexscans or lossy index opclasses could
result in live re-evaluations of the indexqual conditions at some
rows. So we can't safely allow lower(b) to become part of the
indexquals.
regards, tom lane