| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ayush Tiwari <ayushtiwari(dot)slg01(at)gmail(dot)com>, assam258(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [DEPARSE] EXPLAIN prints another ModifyTable's RETURNING aliases in a SubPlan |
| Date: | 2026-10-21 21:25:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCU-9jk8csgW89THESnz80wGZDgnrey3EqJsUKDXuCBpXw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 at 22:15, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 at 19:00, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Anyway, for a back-patchable fix I favor the fragment I showed,
> >> which keeps the lower-level aliases if any and only pushes down
> >> the upper aliases if there are no aliases in the rule.
>
> > That is consistent with the way a Vars' varReturningType is propagated
> > -- if the rule action's RETURNING list causes a Var to have a
> > non-default VarRetruningType, that cannot be overridden by the
> > triggering query.
>
> So just to clarify, you now agree with that fix instead of dropping
> the new Asserts?
Yes, I'm fine either way actually, because I think it's not
particularly likely to come up in practice.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-10-21 21:43:29 | Re: [DEPARSE] EXPLAIN prints another ModifyTable's RETURNING aliases in a SubPlan |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2026-10-21 21:15:12 | Re: [DEPARSE] EXPLAIN prints another ModifyTable's RETURNING aliases in a SubPlan |