Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes:
> While playing around with rules and MERGE, I noticed that there is a
> bug in the way that it detects whether the target table has rules ---
> it uses rd_rel->relhasrules, which can be incorrect, since it might be
> set for a table that doesn't currently have rules, but did in the
> recent past.
> So it actually needs to examine rd_rules. Technically, I think that it
> would be sufficient to just test whether rd_rules is non-NULL, but I
> think it's more robust and readable to check rd_rules->numLocks, as in
> the attached patch.
+1 for the code change. Not quite sure the added test case is worth
the cycles.
regards, tom lane
