Re: [Bug] Add the missing RTE_GRAPH_TABLE case to transformLockingClause()

On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 1:48 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 10.06.26 14:49, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >> Attached is v2-0001, rebased on master and addressing
> >> the comments you added in case we plan on parking the feature
> >> work for once v20 opens.
> > Thanks. I revised it a bit. Reworded the commit message to describe
> > user facing behaviour instead of the internals, which are quite
> > obvious from the code changes. Other cases in transformLockingClause()
> > don't mention XXX, they just have ereport(). Removed that comment.
> > Also massaged comments in the test - we usually don't describe the
> > expected behaviour or error when it is obvious from the output.
> > Attached revised patch.
>
> Committed.
>

Thanks.

> I also modified the comment that said "ignore JOIN, SPECIAL, ..." to
> just say "ignore all other RTE kinds", because keeping that kind of list
> up to date is silly. (RTE_SPECIAL hasn't existed in a long time.)

That comment is useful since it confirms that the omission is
intentional; however I agree that keeping it up to date is cumbersome.
Maybe we need some way to tie the two switch cases so that
unintentional omissions can be easily caught.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat