| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Views no longer in rangeTabls? |
| Date: | 2023-06-10 13:18:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20230610131857.cqrsm6pwq3k47yuv@jrouhaud |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Well, if we're gonna do it we should do it for v16, rather than
> change the data structure twice. It wouldn't be hard exactly:
>
> /*
> * Clear fields that should not be set in a subquery RTE. Note that we
> * leave the relid, rellockmode, and perminfoindex fields set, so that the
> * view relation can be appropriately locked before execution and its
> * permissions checked.
> */
> - rte->relkind = 0;
> rte->tablesample = NULL;
> rte->inh = false; /* must not be set for a subquery */
>
> plus adjustment of that comment and probably also the comment
> for struct RangeTblEntry.
and also handle that field in (read|out)funcs.c
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-06-10 13:27:38 | Re: Views no longer in rangeTabls? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-06-10 12:56:47 | Re: Views no longer in rangeTabls? |