Re: BUG #15623: Inconsistent use of default for updatable view

On 2019/02/27 18:37, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 10:33, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here's an updated patch ...
> 
> So I pushed that. However, ...
> 
> Playing around with it some more, I realised that whilst this appeared
> to fix the reported problem, it exposes another issue which is down to
> the interaction between rewriteTargetListIU() and rewriteValuesRTE()
> --- for an INSERT with a VALUES RTE, rewriteTargetListIU() computes a
> list of target attribute numbers (attrno_list) from the targetlist in
> its original order, which rewriteValuesRTE() then relies on being the
> same length (and in the same order) as each of the lists in the VALUES
> RTE. That's OK for the initial invocation of those functions, but it
> breaks down when they're recursively invoked for auto-updatable views.
>> So actually, I think the right way to fix this is to give up trying to
> compute attrno_list in rewriteTargetListIU(), and have
> rewriteValuesRTE() work out the attribute assignments itself for each
> column of the VALUES RTE by examining the rewritten targetlist. That
> looks to be quite straightforward, and results in a cleaner separation
> of logic between the 2 functions, per the attached patch.

+1.  Only rewriteValuesRTE needs to use that information, so it's better
to teach it to figure it by itself.

> I think that rewriteValuesRTE() should only ever see DEFAULT items for
> columns that are simple assignments to columns of the target relation,
> so it only needs to work out the target attribute numbers for TLEs
> that contain simple Vars referring to the VALUES RTE. Any DEFAULT seen
> in a column not matching that would be an error, but actually I think
> such a thing ought to be a "can't happen" error because of the prior
> checks during parse analysis, so I've used elog() to report if this
> does happen.

+                if (attrno == 0)
+                    elog(ERROR, "Cannot set value in column %d to
DEFAULT", i);

Maybe: s/Cannot/cannot/g

+        Assert(list_length(sublist) == numattrs);

Isn't this Assert useless, because we're setting numattrs to
list_length(<first-sublist>) and transformInsertStmt ensures that all
sublists are same length?


Thanks,
Amit