Re: PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable()

> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It looks like relation_is_updatable() didn't get the message about
>> partitioned tables. Thus, for example, information_schema.views and
>> information_schema.columns report that simple views built on top of
>> partitioned tables are non-updatable, which is wrong. Attached is a
>> patch to fix this.

Thanks for the patch, Dean.

>> I think this kind of omission is an easy mistake to make when adding a
>> new relkind, so it might be worth having more pairs of eyes looking
>> out for more of the same. I did a quick scan of the rewriter code
>> (prompted by the recent similar omission for RLS on partitioned
>> tables) and I didn't find any more problems there, but I haven't
>> looked elsewhere yet.

As he mentioned in his reply, Ashutosh's proposal to abstract away the
relkind checks is interesting in this regard.

On 2017/06/12 17:29, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Changes look good to me. In order to avoid such instances in future, I
> have proposed to bundle the conditions as macros in [1].

It seems that Ashutosh forgot to include the link:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFjFpRcfzs+yst6YBCseD_orEcDNuAr9GUTraZ5GC=AvCYh55Q@mail.gmail.com

Thanks,
Amit