Hi Dean,
On 2019/02/12 19:33, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 11:18, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 00:48, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> However, this is still not the end of the story, because it doesn't
>>> fix the fact that, if the view has a DO ALSO rule on it, single-row
>>> inserts behave differently from multi-row inserts. In that case, each
>>> insert becomes 2 inserts, and defaults need to be treated differently
>>> in each of the 2 queries. That's going to need a little more thought.
>>>
>>
>> Here's an updated patch to handle that case.
>>
>> In case it's not obvious, I'm not intending to try to get this into
>> next week's updates -- more time is needed to be sure of this fix.
>
> So I did some more testing of this and I'm reasonably happy that this
> now fixes the originally reported issue of inconsistent handling of
> DEFAULTS in multi-row VALUES lists vs single-row ones. I tested
> various other scenarios involving conditional/unconditional
> also/instead rules, and I didn't find any other surprises. Attached is
> an updated patch with improved comments, and a little less code
> duplication.
Thanks for updating the patch.
I can't really comment on all of the changes that that you made
considering various cases, but became curious if the single-row and
multi-row inserts cases could share the code that determines if the
DEFAULT item be replaced by the target-relation-specified default or NULL?
IOW, is there some reason why we can't avoid the special handling for the
multi-row (RTE_VALUES) case?
Thanks,
Amit