Re: Views no longer in rangeTabls?

On 6/13/23 06:09, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 10:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> - rte->relkind = 0;
>>
>>> and also handle that field in (read|out)funcs.c
>>
>> Oh, right. Ugh, that means a catversion bump. It's not like
>> we've never done that during beta, but it's kind of an annoying
>> cost for a detail as tiny as this.
>
> OK, so how about the attached?

The patch looks good to me. I also tested it against pgAudit and
everything worked. I decided to go with the following because I think it
is easier to read:

/* We only care about tables/views and can ignore subqueries, etc. */
if (!(rte->rtekind == RTE_RELATION ||
(rte->rtekind == RTE_SUBQUERY && rte->relkind == RELKIND_VIEW)))
continue;

> I considered adding Assert(relkind == RELKIND_VIEW) in all places that
> have the "rte->rtekind == RTE_SUBQUERY && OidIsValid(rte->relid)"
> condition, but that seemed like an overkill, so only added one in the
> #ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING block in ExecCheckPermissions() that
> f75cec4fff877 added.

This seems like a good place for the assert.

Thanks!
-David