Message-ID: <2b53d137-1448-44cb-11fd-11319cfcb4da@pgmasters.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 10:57:36 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Subject: Re: Views no longer in rangeTabls?
Content-Language: en-US
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>,
 Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <3953179e-9540-e5d1-a743-4bef368785b0@pgmasters.net>
 <CA+HiwqFC0xDCCiXbUjb-xisxo9PPuA8_ykn8Fz+6RbBJBE8mVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <462cd5de-3ade-989b-0798-7e1cab562991@pgmasters.net>
 <470644.1686327286@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <edb0f313-648e-bbca-5ce0-225b9cce046d@pgmasters.net>
 <CA+HiwqFaMfM-082vwNYSAWU13T9nd62DObeNLbSTisSh6odOog@mail.gmail.com>
 <b8a0b834-c936-d135-df66-cc119ceb8205@pgmasters.net>
 <625519.1686401807@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20230610131857.cqrsm6pwq3k47yuv@jrouhaud>
 <629054.1686403658@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+HiwqF1CgsZKvBW_Gz9tErKfOp4t=PQgUKvrvWBG0HP8LdAXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7232d0e1-36af-bf3f-e784-6b5576bae627@pgmasters.net>
 <CA+HiwqHAZVm+qDmNLvS6CT2OiNoiRhr-00B3XEkVNOi26+Rpug@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
In-Reply-To: <CA+HiwqHAZVm+qDmNLvS6CT2OiNoiRhr-00B3XEkVNOi26+Rpug@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2b53d137-1448-44cb-11fd-11319cfcb4da%40pgmasters.net>
Precedence: bulk

On 6/13/23 10:27, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 4:44 PM David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> 
>> I decided to go with the following because I think it
>> is easier to read:
>>
>> /* We only care about tables/views and can ignore subqueries, etc. */
>> if (!(rte->rtekind == RTE_RELATION ||
>>         (rte->rtekind == RTE_SUBQUERY && rte->relkind == RELKIND_VIEW)))
>>       continue;
> 
> It didn't occur to me so far to mention it but this could be replaced with:
> 
>      if (rte->perminfoindex != 0)
> 
> and turn that condition into an Assert instead, like the loop over
> range table in ExecCheckPermissions() does.

Hmmm, that might work, and save us a filter on rte->perminfoindex later 
on (to filter out table partitions). Thanks for the tip!

>>> I considered adding Assert(relkind == RELKIND_VIEW) in all places that
>>> have the "rte->rtekind == RTE_SUBQUERY && OidIsValid(rte->relid)"
>>> condition, but that seemed like an overkill, so only added one in the
>>> #ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING block in ExecCheckPermissions() that
>>> f75cec4fff877 added.
>>
>> This seems like a good place for the assert.
> 
> I added a comment above this Assert.
> 
> I'd like to push this tomorrow barring objections.

+1 for the new comment.

Regards,
-David