> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> It looks like relation_is_updatable() didn't get the message about >> partitioned tables. Thus, for example, information_schema.views and >> information_schema.columns report that simple views built on top of >> partitioned tables are non-updatable, which is wrong. Attached is a >> patch to fix this.
Thanks for the patch, Dean. >> I think this kind of omission is an easy mistake to make when adding a >> new relkind, so it might be worth having more pairs of eyes looking >> out for more of the same. I did a quick scan of the rewriter code >> (prompted by the recent similar omission for RLS on partitioned >> tables) and I didn't find any more problems there, but I haven't >> looked elsewhere yet. As he mentioned in his reply, Ashutosh's proposal to abstract away the relkind checks is interesting in this regard. On 2017/06/12 17:29, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Changes look good to me. In order to avoid such instances in future, I > have proposed to bundle the conditions as macros in [1]. It seems that Ashutosh forgot to include the link: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFjFpRcfzs+yst6YBCseD_orEcDNuAr9GUTraZ5GC=avcyh...@mail.gmail.com Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
