Six comments and doc lines put the number of RLS policies at 58. It is
21 — counted from pg_policy while building the data catalogue. The
figure appears in load-bearing prose ("all 58 policies call
is_hr_user()", "all 58 policies stay unchanged"), where being wrong by a
factor of three invites someone to go looking for the missing thirty-
seven.
The two occurrences inside supabase/migrations/ stay as they are. That
file already ran against the database; its comments record what was
believed at the time, and editing them would make the file differ from
what was applied for no gain.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The mapping table was declared ON COMMIT DROP. In the Supabase SQL editor
the transaction boundaries are not ours to assume, and a mapping table that
vanished between the two inserts would leave positions without assignments
and be miserable to diagnose. It is now dropped explicitly once both inserts
have run.
docs/azure-migration.md is the design for the Azure move, for review before
any code changes.
Its main finding corrects what I said when I laid out the options: I claimed
that dropping Supabase would push the security boundary into application
code. It does not. auth.uid() appears 70 times, but only one of them matters
— inside is_hr_user(), which all 58 policies call. Swapping the source of
the user id there leaves every policy valid, so the database stays the
boundary.
The risk moves elsewhere, and the design says so plainly: the user id
arrives via set_config(..., true), which is transaction-local. Outside a
transaction it sticks to the pooled connection, and the next request on that
connection runs as the previous user. So the plan makes that structurally
impossible — a single access function that owns the transaction, a lint rule
against importing the pool anywhere else, a database role without BYPASSRLS
so a missing context returns nothing rather than everything, and a test that
sends two requests over one pooled connection to prove the second cannot see
the first.
