On 03.03.24 11:02, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 29.02.24 19:14, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
In nodes/parsenodes.h, it says both
This *must* be false for RTEs other than RTE_RELATION entries.
Well, that's true in the parser ...
and also puts it under
Fields valid in
On 29.02.24 19:14, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
In nodes/parsenodes.h, it says both
This *must* be false for RTEs other than RTE_RELATION entries.
Well, that's true in the parser ...
and also puts it under
Fields valid in all RTEs:
which are both wrong on opposite
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2024-Feb-29, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree that perminfoindex seems to have suffered from add-at-the-end
>> syndrome, and if we do touch the field order you made an improvement
>> there. (BTW, who thought they needn't bother with a comment for
>> perminfoindex?)
> There
On 2024-Feb-29, Tom Lane wrote:
> I agree that perminfoindex seems to have suffered from add-at-the-end
> syndrome, and if we do touch the field order you made an improvement
> there. (BTW, who thought they needn't bother with a comment for
> perminfoindex?)
There is a comment for it, or at
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> In nodes/parsenodes.h, it says both
> This *must* be false for RTEs other than RTE_RELATION entries.
Well, that's true in the parser ...
> and also puts it under
> Fields valid in all RTEs:
> which are both wrong on opposite ends of the spectrum.
> I think
On 23.02.24 16:19, Tom Lane wrote:
Dean Rasheed writes:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 at 14:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
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
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 at 14:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> 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_rtentry():
> * "inh" is
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 at 14:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Various code comments say that the RangeTblEntry field inh may only be
> set for entries of kind RTE_RELATION.
>
> The function pull_up_simple_union_all() in prepjointree.c sets ->inh to
> true for RTE_SUBQUERY entries:
>
> /*
>
Various code comments say that the RangeTblEntry field inh may only be
set for entries of kind RTE_RELATION.
For example
*inh is true for relation references that should be expanded to
include
*inheritance children, if the rel has any. This *must* be false for
*RTEs other
