On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Amit Langote
<langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.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=avcyh...@mail.gmail.com

Sorry and thanks for providing the link.

Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to