From: Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > I think either the bit about rule_action is unnecessary, or most of > the code immediately above this is wrong, because it's only updating > flags in sub_action. Why do you think it's necessary to change > rule_action in addition to sub_action?
Finally, I think I've understood what you meant. Yes, the current code seems to be wrong. rule_action is different from sub_action only when the rule action (the query specified in CREATE RULE) is INSERT SELECT. In that case, rule_action points to the entire INSERT SELECT, while sub_action points to the SELECT part. So, we should add the CTE list and set hasModifyingCTE/hasRecursive flags in rule_action. > Hm. So after looking at this more, the problem is that the rewrite > is producing something equivalent to > > INSERT INTO bug6051_2 > (WITH t1 AS (DELETE FROM bug6051 RETURNING *) SELECT * FROM t1); Yes. In this case, the WITH clause must be put before INSERT. The attached patch is based on your version. It includes cosmetic changes to use = instead of |= for boolean variable assignments. make check passed. Also, Greg-san's original failed test case succeeded. I confirmed that the hasModifyingCTE of the top-level rewritten query is set to true now by looking at the output of debug_print_rewritten and debug_print_plan. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
v3-0001-propagate-CTE-property-flags-in-rewriter.patch
Description: v3-0001-propagate-CTE-property-flags-in-rewriter.patch
