Thread
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Fix DELETE/UPDATE FOR PORTION OF with rules
- 33db6c4baf17 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Add UPDATE/DELETE FOR PORTION OF
- 8e72d914c528 19 (unreleased) cited
-
DELETE/UPDATE FOR PORTION OF with rule system is not working
jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> — 2026-04-13T01:44:38Z
Hi. https://git.postgresql.org/cgit/postgresql.git/commit/?id=8e72d914c52876525a90b28444453de8085c866f DELETE/UPDATE FOR PORTION OF with rule system is not working, and there are no RULE related regession tests. in gram.y, RuleStmt, RuleActionList, RuleActionStmt RuleActionStmt: SelectStmt | InsertStmt | UpdateStmt | DeleteStmt | NotifyStmt ; So far, I found 2 errors, and one crash. There might be more bugs, I didn't try all the cases. drop table if exists fpo_rule; create table fpo_rule (f1 bigint, f2 int4range); INSERT INTO fpo_rule values (1, '[1, 10]'); CREATE RULE rule3 AS ON INSERT TO fpo_rule DO INSTEAD UPDATE fpo_rule FOR PORTION OF f2 FROM 1 to 4 SET F1 = 2; INSERT INTO fpo_rule values (2, '[2, 12]'); ERROR: range types do not match \errverbose ERROR: XX000: range types do not match LOCATION: range_minus_multi, rangetypes.c:1260 CREATE RULE rule4 AS ON DELETE TO fpo_rule DO INSTEAD UPDATE fpo_rule FOR PORTION OF f2 FROM 1 to 4 SET F1 = 2; DELETE FROM fpo_rule; ERROR: no relation entry for relid 3 \errverbose ERROR: XX000: no relation entry for relid 3 LOCATION: find_base_rel, relnode.c:556 DROP RULE rule4 ON fpo_rule; CREATE RULE rule5 AS ON UPDATE TO fpo_rule DO INSTEAD DELETE FROM fpo_rule FOR PORTION OF f2 FROM 1 to 4; UPDATE fpo_rule FOR PORTION OF f2 FROM 1 to 4 SET F1 = 2; -- server crash As of now, we should try to ban CREATE ROLE with UPDATE/DELETE FOR PORTION OF. -- jian https://www.enterprisedb.com/ -
Re: DELETE/UPDATE FOR PORTION OF with rule system is not working
Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com> — 2026-04-13T05:00:03Z
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 at 06:45, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi. > > https://git.postgresql.org/cgit/postgresql.git/commit/?id=8e72d914c52876525a90b28444453de8085c866f > DELETE/UPDATE FOR PORTION OF with rule system is not working, and > there are no RULE related regession tests. Thanks! +cc Paul & Peter as authors of [0] > in gram.y, RuleStmt, RuleActionList, RuleActionStmt > RuleActionStmt: > SelectStmt > | InsertStmt > | UpdateStmt > | DeleteStmt > | NotifyStmt > ; > > So far, I found 2 errors, and one crash. > There might be more bugs, I didn't try all the cases. > > drop table if exists fpo_rule; > create table fpo_rule (f1 bigint, f2 int4range); > INSERT INTO fpo_rule values (1, '[1, 10]'); > CREATE RULE rule3 AS ON INSERT TO fpo_rule DO INSTEAD UPDATE fpo_rule > FOR PORTION OF f2 FROM 1 to 4 SET F1 = 2; > > INSERT INTO fpo_rule values (2, '[2, 12]'); > ERROR: range types do not match > \errverbose > ERROR: XX000: range types do not match > LOCATION: range_minus_multi, rangetypes.c:1260 > > CREATE RULE rule4 AS ON DELETE TO fpo_rule DO INSTEAD UPDATE fpo_rule > FOR PORTION OF f2 FROM 1 to 4 SET F1 = 2; > DELETE FROM fpo_rule; > ERROR: no relation entry for relid 3 > \errverbose > ERROR: XX000: no relation entry for relid 3 > LOCATION: find_base_rel, relnode.c:556 > > DROP RULE rule4 ON fpo_rule; > CREATE RULE rule5 AS ON UPDATE TO fpo_rule DO INSTEAD DELETE FROM > fpo_rule FOR PORTION OF f2 FROM 1 to 4; > UPDATE fpo_rule FOR PORTION OF f2 FROM 1 to 4 SET F1 = 2; -- server crash > > As of now, we should try to ban CREATE ROLE with UPDATE/DELETE FOR PORTION OF. +1 for banning [0] https://git.postgresql.org/cgit/postgresql.git/commit/?id=8e72d914c52876525a90b28444453de8085c866f -- Best regards, Kirill Reshke
-
Re: DELETE/UPDATE FOR PORTION OF with rule system is not working
jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> — 2026-04-13T09:01:06Z
hi. Actually it's supported. The issue mentioned in the first email is caused by: https://git.postgresql.org/cgit/postgresql.git/commit/?id=8e72d914c52876525a90b28444453de8085c866f https://git.postgresql.org/cgit/postgresql.git/diff/src/backend/nodes/nodeFuncs.c?id=8e72d914c52876525a90b28444453de8085c866f --- a/src/backend/nodes/nodeFuncs.c +++ b/src/backend/nodes/nodeFuncs.c @@ -2579,6 +2579,20 @@ expression_tree_walker_impl(Node *node, return true; } break; + case T_ForPortionOfExpr: + { + ForPortionOfExpr *forPortionOf = (ForPortionOfExpr *) node; + + if (WALK(forPortionOf->targetFrom)) + return true; + if (WALK(forPortionOf->targetTo)) + return true; + if (WALK(forPortionOf->targetRange)) + return true; + if (WALK(forPortionOf->overlapsExpr)) + return true; + } + break; We forgot to WALK (expression_tree_walker_impl) ForPortionOfExpr->rangeVar and ForPortionOfExpr->rangeTargetList. We need to WALK those two fields of ForPortionOfExpr in rewriteRuleAction (ChangeVarNodes, ReplaceVarsFromTargetList, etc.), and maybe elsewhere. i am surprised that nothing else has broken because of this. -- jian https://www.enterprisedb.com/ -
Re: DELETE/UPDATE FOR PORTION OF with rule system is not working
Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com> — 2026-04-13T15:10:17Z
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 at 14:01, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote: > > hi. > Actually it's supported. > > The issue mentioned in the first email is caused by: > https://git.postgresql.org/cgit/postgresql.git/commit/?id=8e72d914c52876525a90b28444453de8085c866f > https://git.postgresql.org/cgit/postgresql.git/diff/src/backend/nodes/nodeFuncs.c?id=8e72d914c52876525a90b28444453de8085c866f > > --- a/src/backend/nodes/nodeFuncs.c > +++ b/src/backend/nodes/nodeFuncs.c > @@ -2579,6 +2579,20 @@ expression_tree_walker_impl(Node *node, > return true; > } > break; > + case T_ForPortionOfExpr: > + { > + ForPortionOfExpr *forPortionOf = (ForPortionOfExpr *) node; > + > + if (WALK(forPortionOf->targetFrom)) > + return true; > + if (WALK(forPortionOf->targetTo)) > + return true; > + if (WALK(forPortionOf->targetRange)) > + return true; > + if (WALK(forPortionOf->overlapsExpr)) > + return true; > + } > + break; > > We forgot to WALK (expression_tree_walker_impl) > ForPortionOfExpr->rangeVar and ForPortionOfExpr->rangeTargetList. > We need to WALK those two fields of ForPortionOfExpr in > rewriteRuleAction (ChangeVarNodes, > ReplaceVarsFromTargetList, etc.), and maybe elsewhere. > > i am surprised that nothing else has broken because of this. > > > > -- > jian > https://www.enterprisedb.com/ This fix looks valid for me. Also, are all 4 new test cases really needed? If yes, why are we missing ON DELETE TO ... DO INSTEAD INSERT ? -- Best regards, Kirill Reshke -
Re: DELETE/UPDATE FOR PORTION OF with rule system is not working
Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com> — 2026-04-13T15:13:48Z
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 at 20:10, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com> wrote: > If yes, why are we > missing ON DELETE TO ... DO INSTEAD INSERT ? Oh sorry... i mean ON UPDATE TO DO INSTEAD UPDATE FROM FOR PORTION OF -- Best regards, Kirill Reshke
-
Re: DELETE/UPDATE FOR PORTION OF with rule system is not working
Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> — 2026-04-15T22:40:41Z
On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 2:01 AM jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote: > > hi. > Actually it's supported. I also don't see any reason not to support this. > We forgot to WALK (expression_tree_walker_impl) > ForPortionOfExpr->rangeVar and ForPortionOfExpr->rangeTargetList. > We need to WALK those two fields of ForPortionOfExpr in > rewriteRuleAction (ChangeVarNodes, > ReplaceVarsFromTargetList, etc.), and maybe elsewhere. > > i am surprised that nothing else has broken because of this. Thank you for investigating and sending a fix. The patch looks fine to me. I like the diversity of tests; I don't think we need any more. +-- UPDATE/DELETE FOR PORTION OF with RULEs +CREATE TABLE fpo_rule (f1 bigint, f2 int4range); +INSERT INTO fpo_rule VALUES (1, '[1, 10]'); + +CREATE RULE fpo_rule1 AS ON INSERT TO fpo_rule DO INSTEAD UPDATE fpo_rule FOR PORTION OF f2 FROM 1 TO 4 SET f1 = 2; +INSERT INTO fpo_rule VALUES (1, '[1, 10]'); +SELECT * FROM fpo_rule ORDER BY f1; I only have two small suggestions: Please use '[1, 11)' syntax to match the other tests. Breaking these long lines would be nice. For example: +CREATE RULE fpo_rule1 AS ON INSERT TO fpo_rule + DO INSTEAD UPDATE fpo_rule FOR PORTION OF f2 FROM 1 TO 4 SET f1 = 2; Yours, -- Paul ~{:-) pj@illuminatedcomputing.com -
Re: DELETE/UPDATE FOR PORTION OF with rule system is not working
jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> — 2026-04-17T03:20:08Z
On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 6:40 AM Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote: > > I only have two small suggestions: > > Please use '[1, 11)' syntax to match the other tests. > > Breaking these long lines would be nice. For example: > > +CREATE RULE fpo_rule1 AS ON INSERT TO fpo_rule > + DO INSTEAD UPDATE fpo_rule FOR PORTION OF f2 FROM 1 TO 4 SET f1 = 2; > Please check the attached v2. V1 only has DO INSTEAD rules, adding one DO ALSO rule would make the test coverage more robust. -- jian https://www.enterprisedb.com/
-
Re: DELETE/UPDATE FOR PORTION OF with rule system is not working
Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> — 2026-04-19T18:07:47Z
On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 8:20 PM jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 6:40 AM Paul A Jungwirth > <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote: > > > > I only have two small suggestions: > > > > Please use '[1, 11)' syntax to match the other tests. > > > > Breaking these long lines would be nice. For example: > > > > +CREATE RULE fpo_rule1 AS ON INSERT TO fpo_rule > > + DO INSTEAD UPDATE fpo_rule FOR PORTION OF f2 FROM 1 TO 4 SET f1 = 2; > > > Please check the attached v2. > > V1 only has DO INSTEAD rules, adding one DO ALSO rule would make the > test coverage more robust. Thanks for those changes. This looks great to me! Yours, -- Paul ~{:-) pj@illuminatedcomputing.com -
Re: DELETE/UPDATE FOR PORTION OF with rule system is not working
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> — 2026-04-27T08:46:39Z
On 19.04.26 20:07, Paul A Jungwirth wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 8:20 PM jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 6:40 AM Paul A Jungwirth >> <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote: >>> >>> I only have two small suggestions: >>> >>> Please use '[1, 11)' syntax to match the other tests. >>> >>> Breaking these long lines would be nice. For example: >>> >>> +CREATE RULE fpo_rule1 AS ON INSERT TO fpo_rule >>> + DO INSTEAD UPDATE fpo_rule FOR PORTION OF f2 FROM 1 TO 4 SET f1 = 2; >>> >> Please check the attached v2. >> >> V1 only has DO INSTEAD rules, adding one DO ALSO rule would make the >> test coverage more robust. > > Thanks for those changes. This looks great to me! committed