| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable() |
| Date: | 2017-06-11 15:55:21 |
| Message-ID: | c3b918ac-dd68-0064-649a-e4d31a8c4a0b@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/11/2017 04:32 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
Yeah, I noticed the same while working on the RLS related patch. I did
not see anything else in rewriteHandler.c but it is probably worth
looking wider for other omissions.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2017-06-11 15:59:46 | Re: PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable() |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2017-06-11 15:52:55 | Re: BUG #14682: row level security not work with partitioned table |