Re: oversight in EphemeralNamedRelation support

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hugo Mercier <hugo(dot)mercier(at)oslandia(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: oversight in EphemeralNamedRelation support
Date: 2017-10-09 21:13:55
Message-ID: CAOBaU_aT_Rq7Uqd+203c92cA8eQtHwdHco5ErYb2sttFGQzW7g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I suppose we could consider moving the schemaname check into
> getRTEForSpecialRelationType(), since otherwise both callers need to
> do that (and as you discovered, one forgot).

Thanks for the feedback. That was my first idea, but I assumed there
could be future use for this function on qualified RangeVar if it
wasn't done this way.

I agree it'd be much safer, so v2 attached, check moved in
getRTEForSpecialRelationType().

Attachment Content-Type Size
fix_conflicting_cte-v2.diff text/plain 3.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2017-10-09 21:45:42 Re: Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2017-10-09 20:43:37 Re: oversight in EphemeralNamedRelation support