Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm, the "Assert(rte->subquery != NULL)" doesn't seem right ...
> couldn't there be non-RTE_SUBQUERY rtes in the child? I think the
> original coding was guaranteed to visit only subquery-type RTEs
> but I'm much less convinced about this one. It might
> be better to say
> if (rte->rtekind == RTE_SUBQUERY)
> Or maybe it's okay; I'm too lazy to recheck the representation of
> UNION ALL right now.
Oh, indeed it's not okay. The original UNION ALL view is a prime example
of that. I didn't notice because I was testing without assertions.
Hmm, do we need the copyObject() call for non-subquery RTEs? I'm
guessing no, because they're not modified.
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Bhaskar Sirohi||Date: 2008-08-13 12:38:28|
|Subject: BUG #4352: Service fails to start when moved from domain to workgroup|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-08-12 19:07:27|
|Subject: Re: BUG #4350: 'select' acess given to views containing "union all" even though user has no grants |