"tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com> writes:
> From: Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> 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?
> Finally, I think I've understood what you meant. Yes, the current code seems
> to be wrong.
I'm fairly skeptical of this claim, because that code has stood for a
long time. Can you provide an example (not involving hasModifyingCTE)
in which it's wrong?
regards, tom lane
