> > > --------
> > > static Query *
> > > rewriteRuleAction(Query *parsetree,
> > > ...
> > > if (sub_action_ptr)
> > > + {
> > > *sub_action_ptr = sub_action;
> > > + rule_action->hasModifyingCTE |=
> > parsetree->hasModifyingCTE;
> > > + }
> > > --------
> > >
> > > And the Basic test passed.
> > > What do you think ?
> >
> > That is very close to what I was going to suggest, which is this:
> >
> > diff --git a/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c
> > b/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c
> > index 0672f497c6..3c4417af98 100644
> > --- a/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c
> > +++ b/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c
> > @@ -631,6 +631,8 @@ rewriteRuleAction(Query *parsetree,
> > checkExprHasSubLink((Node *)
> > rule_action->returningList);
> > }
> >
> > + rule_action->hasModifyingCTE |= parsetree->hasModifyingCTE;
> > +
> > return rule_action;
> > }
>
>
> if (parsetree->cteList != NIL && sub_action->commandType !=
> CMD_UTILITY)
> {
> ...
> sub_action->cteList = list_concat(sub_action->cteList,
> }
>
> Is is possible when sub_action is CMD_UTILITY ?
> In this case CTE will be copied to the newone, should we set the set the
> flag in this case ?
Sorry , a typo in my word.
In this case CTE will not be copied to the newone, should we set the set the flag in this case ?
Best regards,
houzj
