From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Another multi-row VALUES bug |
Date: | 2022-11-28 18:52:39 |
Message-ID: | 641849.1669661559@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> A different way to do this, without relying on the contents of the
> targetlist, is to note that, while processing a product query, what we
> really want to do is ignore any VALUES RTEs from the original query,
> since they will have already been processed. There should then never
> be more than one VALUES RTE left to process -- the one from the rule
> action.
> This can be done by exploiting the fact that in product queries, the
> rtable always consists of the rtable from the original query followed
> by the rtable from the rule action, so we just need to ignore the
> right number of RTEs at the start of the rtable. Of course that would
> break if we ever changed the way rewriteRuleAction() worked, but at
> least it only depends on that one other place in the code, which has
> been stable for a long time, so the risk of future breakage seems
> managable.
This looks like a good solution. I didn't actually test the patch,
but it passes an eyeball check. I like the fact that we can verify
that we find only one candidate VALUES RTE.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-11-28 18:52:47 | Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-11-28 18:50:13 | Re: Failed Assert in pgstat_assoc_relation |