On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I tried debugging why that happens and concluded that rewriteTargetView
>> fails to *completely* account for the fact that the view's column's may
>> have different attribute numbers than the underlying table that the DO
>> UPDATE action will be applied to. Especially, even if the view's Vars are
>> replaced with those corresponding underlying base table's columns, the
>> TargetEntry's into which those Vars are contained are not refreshed, that
>> is, their resnos don't match varattnos.
>
>> I created a patch that seems to fix the issue, which also adds a
>> representative test in updatable_view.sql.
>
> Hm. I looked at this patch a bit. While the onConflictSet change looks
> reasonable, I find the exclRelTlist change fishy. Shouldn't those resnos
> correspond to the exclRelTlist's *own* vars, independently of what is or
> isn't in the view_targetlist? And why is it OK to ignore failure to find
> a match?
Any update on this, Amit? I would like to get this one out of the way soon.
Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan