Re: oversight in EphemeralNamedRelation support

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> I suppose we could consider moving the schemaname check into
>> getRTEForSpecialRelationType(), since otherwise both callers need to
>> do that (and as you discovered, one forgot).

> Thanks for the feedback. That was my first idea, but I assumed there
> could be future use for this function on qualified RangeVar if it
> wasn't done this way.

> I agree it'd be much safer, so v2 attached, check moved in
> getRTEForSpecialRelationType().

Hm. I actually think the bug here is that 18ce3a4ab introduced
anything into setTargetTable at all. There was never previously
any assumption that the target could be anything but a regular
table, so we just ignored CTEs there, and I do not think the
new behavior is an improvement.

So my proposal is to rip out the getRTEForSpecialRelationTypes
check there. I tend to agree that getRTEForSpecialRelationTypes
should probably contain an explicit check for unqualified name
rather than relying on its caller ... but that's a matter of
future-proofing not a bug fix.

regards, tom lane