| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Strange permission problem regarding pg_settings |
| Date: | 2003-12-27 22:51:47 |
| Message-ID: | 3FEE0D03.7020705@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> This is exactly what I'm talking about. The rtable for a query
> generated by a rule is the concatenation of the original query's rtable
> and the rule query's rtable. Therefore the RTE for table1 appears
> twice, once in the original INSERT query and once in the generated
> UPDATE query (even though the UPDATE query does not actually use that
> RTE in this case). This would be okay if the RTE's write permission
> flag were not context-dependent, but because it is, we have a problem.
OK, that makes more sense now. But why isn't table2 also in the rule
query's rtable?
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-27 23:16:54 | Re: [GENERAL] Strange permission problem regarding pg_settings |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2003-12-27 22:31:28 | Re: Is my MySQL Gaining ? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-27 23:16:54 | Re: [GENERAL] Strange permission problem regarding pg_settings |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2003-12-27 22:31:28 | Re: Is my MySQL Gaining ? |