Re: BUG #17233: Incorrect behavior of DELETE command with bad subquery in WHERE clause
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #17233: Incorrect behavior of DELETE command with bad subquery in WHERE clause |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20221104110041.3a6tngpyqzod4p4p@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #17233: Incorrect behavior of DELETE command with bad subquery in WHERE clause (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #17233: Incorrect behavior of DELETE command with bad subquery in WHERE clause
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
I gave this a quick spin and couldn't find any faults. The bit about getting an incorrect hint when p_rel_visible is false had me busy for a little while (specifically I ran into it with the "unnamed_subquery" stuff added by commit bcedd8f5fce0), but maybe that's a fringe enough case, as the comment in rte_visible_if_lateral says. I did wonder why errorMissingColumn doesn't consider rte_visible_if_* in the case when there *is* an rsecond candidate. I understand that the reason is that if we come across any exact match we already return that one without looking for a second one. Maybe this deserves a comment (in errorMissingColumn I mean) but I also wonder if we shouldn't scan the whole RT in case there's another exact match that's also not visible. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Learn about compilers. Then everything looks like either a compiler or a database, and now you have two problems but one of them is fun." https://twitter.com/thingskatedid/status/1456027786158776329
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: