On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 5:21 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> BTW, the original query's cteList is copied into sub_action query but
> not into rule_action for reasons I haven't looked very closely into,
> even though we'd like to ultimately set the latter's hasModifyingCTE
> to reflect the original query's, right? So we should do the following
> at some point before returning:
>
> if (sub_action->hasModifyingCTE)
> rule_action->hasModifyingCTE = true;
>
Actually, rule_action will usually point to sub_action (in which case,
no need to copy to rule_action), except if the rule action is an
INSERT...SELECT, which seems to be handled by some "kludge" according
to the following comment (and KLUDGE ALERT comment in the function
that is called):
/*
* Adjust rule action and qual to offset its varnos, so that we can merge
* its rtable with the main parsetree's rtable.
*
* If the rule action is an INSERT...SELECT, the OLD/NEW rtable entries
* will be in the SELECT part, and we have to modify that rather than the
* top-level INSERT (kluge!).
*/
sub_action = getInsertSelectQuery(rule_action, &sub_action_ptr);
So in that case (sub_action_ptr != NULL), within rule_action there is
a pointer to sub_action (RTE for the subquery), so whenever sub_action
is re-created, this pointer needs to be fixed-up.
It looks like I might need to copy hasModifyingCTE back to rule_action
in this case - but not 100% sure on it yet - still checking that. All
tests run so far pass without doing that though.
This is one reason for my original approach (though I admit, it was
not optimal) because at least it was reliable and detected the
modifyingCTE after all the rewriting and kludgy code had finished.
Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia
