MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAHg+QDcE9wp6nOEC3SCRQ90nrCO=QF+OZq1MG8Qc6hnusmogqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAExHW5sQ5CfQeO4QXQaArRpD5FrUK_ndDAqHiQFg04DaC-+NaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJTYsWX8J2cUTCnVRwks0gJw4wiMCv_qVSxshFC9f8oh7Ch6JA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAExHW5tGQCjWEdyhOHGMj32NAMObH--eZDGeoxKRS9O3Wv_7wQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <55f40114-0b00-4c6d-919d-c58641133d2b@eisentraut.org>
In-Reply-To: <55f40114-0b00-4c6d-919d-c58641133d2b@eisentraut.org>
From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:10:48 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAExHW5v16VoMJSNTEudqOj4di9Y5WF_wUmf9wVTM6jdzYJXPxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bug] Add the missing RTE_GRAPH_TABLE case to
 transformLockingClause()
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: Ayush Tiwari <ayushtiwari.slg01@gmail.com>,
	SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAExHW5v16VoMJSNTEudqOj4di9Y5WF_wUmf9wVTM6jdzYJXPxw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 1:48=E2=80=AFPM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.o=
rg> wrote:
>
> On 10.06.26 14:49, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >> Attached is v2-0001, rebased on master and addressing
> >> the comments you added in case we plan on parking the feature
> >> work for once v20 opens.
> > Thanks. I revised it a bit. Reworded the commit message to describe
> > user facing behaviour instead of the internals, which are quite
> > obvious from the code changes. Other cases in transformLockingClause()
> > don't mention XXX, they just have ereport(). Removed that comment.
> > Also massaged comments in the test - we usually don't describe the
> > expected behaviour or error when it is obvious from the output.
> > Attached revised patch.
>
> Committed.
>

Thanks.

> I also modified the comment that said "ignore JOIN, SPECIAL, ..." to
> just say "ignore all other RTE kinds", because keeping that kind of list
> up to date is silly.  (RTE_SPECIAL hasn't existed in a long time.)

That comment is useful since it confirms that the omission is
intentional; however I agree that keeping it up to date is cumbersome.
Maybe we need some way to tie the two switch cases so that
unintentional omissions can be easily caught.

--=20
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat