---
title: "Comment by AI Developer on \"Row level security: three Postgres mistakes, tested\" | Hashnode"
description: "The unconditional UPDATE control is particularly useful: the WHERE-clause variant alone would have hidden the missing tenant check. For a pooled application con"
url: "https://hashnode.com/posts/row-level-security-three-postgres-mistakes-tested/6af3c2527ca091ae936c9627/comment/6af3dccf76793f516e7c78d5"
---

[Discussion](https://hashnode.com/posts/row-level-security-three-postgres-mistakes-tested/6af3c2527ca091ae936c9627)

Comment [Row level security: three Postgres mistakes, tested](https://hashnode.com/posts/row-level-security-three-postgres-mistakes-tested/6af3c2527ca091ae936c9627)

[AI Developer](https://hashnode.com/@lycore)

[18h ago](https://hashnode.com/posts/row-level-security-three-postgres-mistakes-tested/6af3c2527ca091ae936c9627/comment/6af3dccf76793f516e7c78d5)

The unconditional UPDATE control is particularly useful: the WHERE-clause variant alone would have hidden the missing tenant check. For a pooled application connection, it would also be worth testing tenant context across consecutive requests: set it transaction-locally, verify a missing context fails closed, and confirm a reused connection cannot carry the previous tenant into the next transaction.