Re: Second RewriteQuery complains about first RewriteQuery in edge case
| От | Bernice Southey |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Second RewriteQuery complains about first RewriteQuery in edge case |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAEDh4nwrgknRCP1rxJ42PWf+20i2xOBmF-3pNcG5xrqLiKkU2g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Second RewriteQuery complains about first RewriteQuery in edge case (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Second RewriteQuery complains about first RewriteQuery in edge case
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com> wrote: > Added test are good, but two things: > 1) Why with.sql and not generated.sql ? This bug is "with" in combination with "generated identity" and "updatable view". The current fix targets "with", so that made me pick "with". It should move to "generated_stored" if the fix is idempotent rewriteTargetListIU. > 2) Why do you create table and view as temp relations? The bug have > nothing to do with the temporality of objects? I copied the other tests in the "with" file, assuming they needed to be temp. I agree it should be removed. Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote: > Of course, we could attempt to make > rewriteTargetListIU() idempotent, but that might be more effort This was my first thought. I still haven't figured my way through how all the checks work. This bug doesn't happen on a generated always column that's not identity, because that follows a different path. Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > How do we know that whatever > prompted the repeat rewrite didn't change the WITH clauses? I went through the history and it seemed to me the repeat rewrite was accidental because of the two ways this method can recurse. Doesn't mean it's not doing anything. Thanks, Bernice
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: