From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: RangeTblEntry.inh vs. RTE_SUBQUERY
In-reply-to: <CAEZATCXZP9dd4oym=nLzkHswjfBcY6-Xe4RH+v+YLC0jiKR30Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6c1fbccc-85c8-40d3-b08b-4f47f2093711@eisentraut.org> <CAEZATCXZP9dd4oym=nLzkHswjfBcY6-Xe4RH+v+YLC0jiKR30Q@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:52:20 +0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <814828.1708701565.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:19:25 -0500
Message-ID: <814829.1708701565@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/814829.1708701565%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 at 14:35, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wr=
ote:
>> 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_rt=
entry():

>  * "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