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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
