Skip to content

Commit 6f8e393

Browse files
committed
Revert "Propagate CTE property flags when copying a CTE list into a rule."
This reverts commit ed29089 and equivalent back-branch commits. The issue is subtler than I thought, and it's far from new, so just before a release deadline is no time to be fooling with it. We'll consider what to do at a bit more leisure. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJcOf-fAdj=nDKMsRhQzndm-O13NY4dL6xGcEvdX5Xvbbi0V7g@mail.gmail.com
1 parent 01e3fe3 commit 6f8e393

File tree

1 file changed

+0
-6
lines changed

1 file changed

+0
-6
lines changed

src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c

-6
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -511,9 +511,6 @@ rewriteRuleAction(Query *parsetree,
511511
*
512512
* This could possibly be fixed by using some sort of internally
513513
* generated ID, instead of names, to link CTE RTEs to their CTEs.
514-
* However, decompiling the results would be quite confusing; note the
515-
* merge of hasRecursive flags below, which could change the apparent
516-
* semantics of such redundantly-named CTEs.
517514
*/
518515
foreach(lc, parsetree->cteList)
519516
{
@@ -535,9 +532,6 @@ rewriteRuleAction(Query *parsetree,
535532
/* OK, it's safe to combine the CTE lists */
536533
sub_action->cteList = list_concat(sub_action->cteList,
537534
copyObject(parsetree->cteList));
538-
/* ... and don't forget about the associated flags */
539-
sub_action->hasRecursive |= parsetree->hasRecursive;
540-
sub_action->hasModifyingCTE |= parsetree->hasModifyingCTE;
541535
}
542536

543537
/*

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)