From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: todoubaba@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #16856: Crash when add "_RETURN" rule on child table
In-reply-to: <191747.1612632025@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <16856-0363e05c6e1612fd@postgresql.org>
 <YB6QA1T0X//P+99P@paquier.xyz> <191747.1612632025@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Sat, 06 Feb 2021 12:20:25 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <192153.1612632661.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 12:31:01 -0500
Message-ID: <192154.1612632661@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I wrote:
> So my take is that this is an oversight in the CREATE RULE logic
> that allows converting a table to a view: if it has inheritance
> parents or children we must disallow doing that.

Come to think of it, applying ON INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE rules to
inheritance tree members is a bit problematic too.  If you do
"UPDATE parent SET ..." then any ON UPDATE rules on the child
table are ignored (since the rewriter considers only "parent").
This probably doesn't lead to any system malfunctions, but
users might find it surprising.  I bet we don't document that
adequately.

			regards, tom lane