Greg Nancarrow <gregn4...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 10:03 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think either the bit about rule_action is unnecessary, or most of
>> the code immediately above this is wrong, because it's only updating
>> flags in sub_action. Why do you think it's necessary to change
>> rule_action in addition to sub_action?
> I believe that the bit about rule_action IS necessary, as it's needed
> for the case of INSERT...SELECT, so that hasModifyingCTE is set on the
> rewritten INSERT (see comment above the call to
> getInsertSelectQuery(), and the "KLUDGE ALERT" comment within that
> function).
Hm. So after looking at this more, the problem is that the rewrite
is producing something equivalent to
INSERT INTO bug6051_2
(WITH t1 AS (DELETE FROM bug6051 RETURNING *) SELECT * FROM t1);
If you try to do that directly, the parser will give you the raspberry:
ERROR: WITH clause containing a data-modifying statement must be at the top
level
LINE 2: (WITH t1 AS (DELETE FROM bug6051 RETURNING *) SELECT * FROM ...
^
The code throwing that error, in analyzeCTE(), explains
/*
* We disallow data-modifying WITH except at the top level of a query,
* because it's not clear when such a modification should be executed.
*/
That semantic issue doesn't get any less pressing just because the query
was generated by rewrite. So I now think that what we have to do is
throw an error if we have a modifying CTE and sub_action is different
from rule_action. Not quite sure how to phrase the error though.
In view of this, maybe the right thing is to disallow modifying CTEs
in rule actions in the first place. I see we already do that for
views (i.e. ON SELECT rules), but they're not really any safer in
other types of rules. Given that non-SELECT rules are an undertested
legacy thing, I'm not that excited about moving mountains to make
this case possible.
Anyway, I think I'm going to go revert the patch I crammed in last night.
There's more here than meets the eye, and right before a release is no
time to be fooling with an issue that's been there for years.
regards, tom lane
