On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 10:03 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com> writes:
> > I found a bug in the query rewriter. If a query that has a modifying
> > CTE is re-written, the hasModifyingCTE flag is not getting set in the
> > re-written query.
>
> Ugh.
>
> > I've attached the patch with the suggested fix (reviewed by Amit Langote).
>
> I think either the bit about rule_action is unnecessary, or most of
> the code immediately above this is wrong, because it's only updating
> flags in sub_action. Why do you think it's necessary to change
> rule_action in addition to sub_action?
>
I believe that the bit about rule_action IS necessary, as it's needed
for the case of INSERT...SELECT, so that hasModifyingCTE is set on the
rewritten INSERT (see comment above the call to
getInsertSelectQuery(), and the "KLUDGE ALERT" comment within that
function).
In the current Postgres code, it doesn't let INSERT run in
parallel-mode (only SELECT), but in the debugger you can clearly see
that for an INSERT with a subquery that uses a modifying CTE, the
hasModifyingCTE flag is not getting set on the rewritten INSERT query
by the query rewriter. As I've been working on parallel INSERT, I
found the issue first for INSERT (one test failure in the "with" tests
when force_parallel_mode=regress).
Here's some silly SQL (very similar to existing test case in the
"with" tests) to reproduce the issue for INSERT (as I said, it won't
give an error like the SELECT case, as currently INSERT is not allowed
in parallel-mode anyway, but the issue can be seen in the debugger):
set force_parallel_mode=on;
CREATE TABLE bug6051 AS
select i from generate_series(1,3) as i;
SELECT * FROM bug6051;
CREATE TABLE bug6051_2 (i int);
CREATE RULE bug6051_ins AS ON INSERT TO bug6051 DO INSTEAD
INSERT INTO bug6051_2
SELECT NEW.i;
WITH t1 AS ( DELETE FROM bug6051 RETURNING * )
INSERT INTO bug6051 SELECT * FROM t1;
Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia
