From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: on placeholder entries in view rule action query's range table |
Date: | 2023-04-05 18:33:33 |
Message-ID: | 2016650.1680719613@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> While thinking about query view locking in context of [1], I realized
> that we have missed also fixing AcquirePlannerLocks() /
> ScanQueryForLocks() to consider that an RTE_SUBQUERY rte may belong to
> a view, which must be locked the same as RTE_RELATION entries.
I think you're right about that, because AcquirePlannerLocks is supposed
to reacquire whatever locks parsing+rewriting would have gotten.
However, what's with this hunk?
@@ -527,7 +527,7 @@ standard_planner(Query *parse, const char *query_string, int cursorOptions,
result->partPruneInfos = glob->partPruneInfos;
result->rtable = glob->finalrtable;
result->permInfos = glob->finalrteperminfos;
- result->viewRelations = glob->viewRelations;
+ result->viewRelations = NIL;
result->resultRelations = glob->resultRelations;
result->appendRelations = glob->appendRelations;
result->subplans = glob->subplans;
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2023-04-05 18:43:07 | Re: GUC for temporarily disabling event triggers |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-04-05 18:28:35 | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |