Re: WIP patch (v2) for updatable security barrier views - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: WIP patch (v2) for updatable security barrier views
Date
Msg-id 18451.1390977809@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP patch (v2) for updatable security barrier views  (Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>)
Responses Re: WIP patch (v2) for updatable security barrier views  (Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>)
Re: WIP patch (v2) for updatable security barrier views  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Re: WIP patch (v2) for updatable security barrier views  (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> writes:
> Let me ask an elemental question. What is the reason why inheritance
> expansion logic should be located on the planner stage, not on the tail
> of rewriter?

I think it's mostly historical.  You would however have to think of a
way to preserve the inheritance relationships in the parsetree
representation.  In the current code, expand_inherited_tables() adds
AppendRelInfo nodes to the planner's data structures as it does the
expansion; but I don't think AppendRelInfo is a suitable structure
for the rewriter to work with, and in any case there's no place to
put it in the Query representation.

Actually though, isn't this issue mostly about inheritance of a query
*target* table?  Moving that expansion to the rewriter is a totally
different and perhaps more tractable change.  It's certainly horribly ugly
as it is; hard to see how doing it at the rewriter could be worse.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: updated emacs configuration
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Add min and max execute statement time in pg_stat_statement