Subject: Re: BUG #15623: Inconsistent use of default for updatable view
References: <15623-5d67a46788ec8b7f@postgresql.org>
 <952caeff-2cc7-6db9-1f2b-418442b51045@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CAEZATCUmSp3-8nLOpgGcPkpUEXK9TJGM=iA6q4E2Sn=+bwkKNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+HiwqGyuNo7O-G0LUz-=1f4ZSSST4-9sLhP+Twx-PFJSPRfug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZATCXTg_gxzf86+eTyLzJCY3OACQ71Wo_TPaeZyNAuo7frOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZATCX1cN4Lcd80ZJXHf7qVRrMReOSOUF_0Z6YFhk89NNcGbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZATCVGid6C7v6aMdA_7ZKPJPGYpwQ2bQhYrZ0=E5RDJQp7yw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Message-ID: <fa629211-4476-6dcd-25fe-963e7b84cf88@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:02:25 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEZATCVGid6C7v6aMdA_7ZKPJPGYpwQ2bQhYrZ0=E5RDJQp7yw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>,
        Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Roger Curley <rocurley@gmail.com>, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org,
        PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Dean,

On 2019/02/12 19:33, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 11:18, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 00:48, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> However, this is still not the end of the story, because it doesn't
>>> fix the fact that, if the view has a DO ALSO rule on it, single-row
>>> inserts behave differently from multi-row inserts. In that case, each
>>> insert becomes 2 inserts, and defaults need to be treated differently
>>> in each of the 2 queries. That's going to need a little more thought.
>>>
>>
>> Here's an updated patch to handle that case.
>>
>> In case it's not obvious, I'm not intending to try to get this into
>> next week's updates -- more time is needed to be sure of this fix.
> 
> So I did some more testing of this and I'm reasonably happy that this
> now fixes the originally reported issue of inconsistent handling of
> DEFAULTS in multi-row VALUES lists vs single-row ones. I tested
> various other scenarios involving conditional/unconditional
> also/instead rules, and I didn't find any other surprises. Attached is
> an updated patch with improved comments, and a little less code
> duplication.

Thanks for updating the patch.

I can't really comment on all of the changes that that you made
considering various cases, but became curious if the single-row and
multi-row inserts cases could share the code that determines if the
DEFAULT item be replaced by the target-relation-specified default or NULL?
 IOW, is there some reason why we can't avoid the special handling for the
multi-row (RTE_VALUES) case?

Thanks,
Amit