On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 15:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Not quite sure the added test case is worth the cycles.
>
No, probably not, for such a trivial change.
Pushed to HEAD and 15, without the test. Thanks for looking!
Regards,
Dean
Dean Rasheed writes:
> While playing around with rules and MERGE, I noticed that there is a
> bug in the way that it detects whether the target table has rules ---
> it uses rd_rel->relhasrules, which can be incorrect, since it might be
> set for a table that doesn't currently have rules, but did
While playing around with rules and MERGE, I noticed that there is a
bug in the way that it detects whether the target table has rules ---
it uses rd_rel->relhasrules, which can be incorrect, since it might be
set for a table that doesn't currently have rules, but did in the
recent past.
So it act
