From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PoC: Make it possible to disallow WHERE-less UPDATE and DELETE |
Date: | 2016-10-01 12:52:25 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRDoOZ+a1xO9fmSg9zzHsaww85SONL9zuZQ+XAVNCwANg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I guess you need something involving query_tree_walker or some other
> kind of recursive traversal if you want to find DELETE/UPDATE lurking
> in there.
>
> One option would be to document it as working for top level DELETE or
> UPDATE, and leave the recursive version as an improvement for a later
> patch. That's the most interesting kind to catch because that's what
> people are most likely to type directly into a command line.
That would be a halfy-baked feature then, and the patch would finish
by being refactored anyway if we support more cases in the future,
because those will need a tree walker (think CTAS, INSERT SELECT,
using WITH queries that contain DMLs)... Personally I think that it
would be surprising if subqueries are not restrained. So I am -1 for
the patch as-is, and let's come up with the most generic approach.
Having more regression tests would be a good idea as well. I am
marking the patch as returned with feedback. This CF has normally
already ended.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2016-10-01 14:35:26 | Re: pgbench more operators & functions |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-10-01 12:41:17 | Re: COPY command with RLS bug |