Simplify view-expansion code in rewriteHandler.c.
In the wake of commit 50c6bb02, it's not necessary for ApplyRetrieveRule to have a forUpdatePushedDown parameter. By the time control gets here for any given view-referencing RTE, we should already have pushed down the effects of any FOR UPDATE/SHARE clauses affecting the view from outer query levels. Hence if we don't find a RowMarkClause at the current query level, that's sufficient proof that there is no outer one either. This in turn means we need no forUpdatePushedDown parameter for fireRIRrules. I wonder whether we oughtn't also revert commit cba2d271, since it now seems likely that that was band-aiding around the bad effects of doing FOR UPDATE pushdown and view expansion in the wrong order. However, in the absence of evidence that the current coding of markQueryForLocking is actually buggy (i.e. missing RTEs it ought to mark), it seems best to leave it alone. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/24db7b8f-3de5-e25f-7ab9-d8848351d42c@gmail.com
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment