Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sVu4W-00CFEd-Fa for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:31:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sVu4U-002r1A-En for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:31:26 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sVu4U-002qzd-5e for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:31:26 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sVu4S-000sDQ-2V for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:31:25 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 46MEVL4L868881; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:31:21 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Dean Rasheed cc: exclusion@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #18546: Attempt to insert default into a non-updatable column of a view fails with a dubious error In-reply-to: References: <18546-84a292e759a9361d@postgresql.org> <320614.1721492789@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Dean Rasheed message dated "Mon, 22 Jul 2024 09:41:11 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <868879.1721658681.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:31:21 -0400 Message-ID: <868880.1721658681@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Dean Rasheed writes: > I had always thought that rewriteTargetListIU() only ever added or > merged items, somehow overlooking the fact that it could also delete > them. In my defence, it's very easy to get that impression just by > reading the function's comments. I think it's worth updating those > comments to mention that. Something like the attached, perhaps. No objection here. regards, tom lane