| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "lxndrkrlv(at)gmail(dot)com" <lxndrkrlv(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17233: Incorrect behavior of DELETE command with bad subquery in WHERE clause |
| Date: | 2022-11-04 11:00:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20221104110041.3a6tngpyqzod4p4p@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I gave this a quick spin and couldn't find any faults.
The bit about getting an incorrect hint when p_rel_visible is false had
me busy for a little while (specifically I ran into it with the
"unnamed_subquery" stuff added by commit bcedd8f5fce0), but maybe that's
a fringe enough case, as the comment in rte_visible_if_lateral says.
I did wonder why errorMissingColumn doesn't consider rte_visible_if_* in
the case when there *is* an rsecond candidate. I understand that the
reason is that if we come across any exact match we already return that
one without looking for a second one. Maybe this deserves a comment (in
errorMissingColumn I mean) but I also wonder if we shouldn't scan the
whole RT in case there's another exact match that's also not visible.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Learn about compilers. Then everything looks like either a compiler or
a database, and now you have two problems but one of them is fun."
https://twitter.com/thingskatedid/status/1456027786158776329
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2022-11-04 12:30:19 | BUG #17677: pg_upgrade error 14.5->15.0 |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2022-11-04 08:07:54 | Re: Wrong result with constant quals |