| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in query rewriter - hasModifyingCTE not getting set |
| Date: | 2021-05-20 15:17:43 |
| Message-ID: | 3688544.1621523863@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> writes:
> From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>> I think either the bit about rule_action is unnecessary, or most of
>> the code immediately above this is wrong, because it's only updating
>> flags in sub_action. Why do you think it's necessary to change
>> rule_action in addition to sub_action?
> Finally, I think I've understood what you meant. Yes, the current code seems to be wrong.
I'm fairly skeptical of this claim, because that code has stood for a
long time. Can you provide an example (not involving hasModifyingCTE)
in which it's wrong?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ondřej Žižka | 2021-05-20 15:40:36 | Re: Synchronous commit behavior during network outage |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-05-20 14:51:46 | Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions |