Re: RangeTblEntry.inh vs. RTE_SUBQUERY
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RangeTblEntry.inh vs. RTE_SUBQUERY |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 814829.1708701565@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RangeTblEntry.inh vs. RTE_SUBQUERY (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: RangeTblEntry.inh vs. RTE_SUBQUERY
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 at 14:35, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote: >> Various code comments say that the RangeTblEntry field inh may only be >> set for entries of kind RTE_RELATION. > Yes, it's explained a bit more clearly/accurately in expand_inherited_rtentry(): > * "inh" is only allowed in two cases: RELATION and SUBQUERY RTEs. Yes. The latter has been accurate for a very long time, so I'm surprised that there are any places that think otherwise. We need to fix them --- where did you see this exactly? (Note that RELATION-only is accurate within the parser and rewriter, so maybe clarifications about context are in order.) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: