Re: BUG #15623: Inconsistent use of default for updatable view

From: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Roger Curley <rocurley(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, PG Bug reporting form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #15623: Inconsistent use of default for updatable view
Date: 2019-02-28 14:07:46
Message-ID: CAEZATCWFURkSW8CsKih=hqpOGz+JkvuBDtGmtWc-GrZEfahjFg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 07:47, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> + if (attrno == 0)
> + elog(ERROR, "Cannot set value in column %d to
> DEFAULT", i);
>
> Maybe: s/Cannot/cannot/g
>

Ah yes, you're right. That is the convention.

> + Assert(list_length(sublist) == numattrs);
>
> Isn't this Assert useless, because we're setting numattrs to
> list_length(<first-sublist>) and transformInsertStmt ensures that all
> sublists are same length?
>

Well possibly I'm being over-paranoid, but given that it may have come
via a previous invocation of rewriteValuesRTE() that may have
completely rebuilt the lists, it seemed best to be sure that it hadn't
done something unexpected. It's about to use that to read from the
attrnos array, so it might read beyond the array bounds if any of the
prior logic was faulty.

Thanks for looking.

Regards,
Dean

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2019-02-28 14:28:20 Re: BUG #15661: Error connecting to the server
Previous Message Serbin, Ilya 2019-02-28 12:33:25 Re: BUG #15660: pg_dump memory leaks when dumping LOBs

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Kuzmenkov 2019-02-28 14:09:34 Re: Removing unneeded self joins
Previous Message Robert Haas 2019-02-28 13:59:58 Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?