| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bernice Southey <bernice(dot)southey(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Second RewriteQuery complains about first RewriteQuery in edge case |
| Date: | 2025-11-29 12:45:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCXOL6F=AhP+JZjYuACSHsYKZLdC8-D76MiNJpZi1+VfiQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 at 09:21, Bernice Southey <bernice(dot)southey(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> This is neat.
> Should the test be the rules one? Updatable views are more used, but
> your rules example has more coverage.
Yes, I think that's probably better. I've tweaked the test to use both
rules and updatable views, so that it has to deal with more than one
CTE. That way, it validates that we skip already-processed CTEs from
the right end of the list.
Pushed and back-patched.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-11-29 14:18:49 | Re: should we have a fast-path planning for OLTP starjoins? |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2025-11-29 12:42:56 | Re: Second RewriteQuery complains about first RewriteQuery in edge case |