Thread: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix problems related to RangeTblEntry members enrname andenrtup

Fix problems related to RangeTblEntry members enrname and enrtuples.

Commit 18ce3a4ab22d2984f8540ab480979c851dae5338 failed to update
the comments in parsenodes.h for the new members, and made only
incomplete updates to src/backend/nodes

Thomas Munro, per a report from Noah Misch.

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/20170611062525.GA1628882@rfd.leadboat.com

Branch
------
master

Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/f32d57fd7088a558dadbe21b9859b09d2f877c19

Modified Files
--------------
src/backend/nodes/copyfuncs.c  |  3 ++-
src/backend/nodes/equalfuncs.c |  2 ++
src/backend/nodes/outfuncs.c   |  1 +
src/backend/nodes/readfuncs.c  |  1 +
src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h | 14 +++++++++++++-
5 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)


Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org> writes:
> Fix problems related to RangeTblEntry members enrname and enrtuples.
> Commit 18ce3a4ab22d2984f8540ab480979c851dae5338 failed to update
> the comments in parsenodes.h for the new members, and made only
> incomplete updates to src/backend/nodes

This really should have involved a catversion bump.  But we just
had one earlier today, so in practice it might not matter.

            regards, tom lane


On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org> writes:
>> Fix problems related to RangeTblEntry members enrname and enrtuples.
>> Commit 18ce3a4ab22d2984f8540ab480979c851dae5338 failed to update
>> the comments in parsenodes.h for the new members, and made only
>> incomplete updates to src/backend/nodes
>
> This really should have involved a catversion bump.  But we just
> had one earlier today, so in practice it might not matter.

Oh, because of stored rules using the old RangeTblEntry serialization
format?  Sorry, I totally missed that.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> This really should have involved a catversion bump.  But we just
>> had one earlier today, so in practice it might not matter.

> Oh, because of stored rules using the old RangeTblEntry serialization
> format?  Sorry, I totally missed that.

Yeah, exactly.  In practice I'm not sure a stored rule/view could contain
an RTE_NAMEDTUPLESTORE RangeTblEntry, but if it did, there'd be a problem.

            regards, tom lane


On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> This really should have involved a catversion bump.  But we just
>>> had one earlier today, so in practice it might not matter.
>
>> Oh, because of stored rules using the old RangeTblEntry serialization
>> format?  Sorry, I totally missed that.
>
> Yeah, exactly.  In practice I'm not sure a stored rule/view could contain
> an RTE_NAMEDTUPLESTORE RangeTblEntry, but if it did, there'd be a problem.

I think that's not possible, so we're probably fine, even apart from
the fact that we've bumped catversion multiple times since beta1.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company