While withCheckOption exprs had been handled in many cases by
happenstance, they need to be handled during set_plan_references and
more specifically down in set_plan_refs for ModifyTable plan nodes.
This is to ensure that the opfuncid's are set for operators referenced
in the withCheckOption exprs.
Identified as an issue by Thom Brown
Patch by Dean Rasheed
Back-patch to 9.4, where withCheckOption was introduced.
Looks like we can end up with different plans happening on the
buildfarm, which breaks the regression tests when we include
EXPLAIN output (which is done in the regression tests for
updatable security views, to ensure that the user-defined
function isn't pushed down to a level where it could view the
rows before the security quals are applied).
This adds in ANALYZE to hopefully make the plans consistent.
The ANALYZE ends up changing the original plan too, so the
update looks bigger than it really is. The new plan looks
perfectly valid, of course.
Views which are marked as security_barrier must have their quals
applied before any user-defined quals are called, to prevent
user-defined functions from being able to see rows which the
security barrier view is intended to prevent them from seeing.
Remove the restriction on security barrier views being automatically
updatable by adding a new securityQuals list to the RTE structure
which keeps track of the quals from security barrier views at each
level, independently of the user-supplied quals. When RTEs are
later discovered which have securityQuals populated, they are turned
into subquery RTEs which are marked as security_barrier to prevent
any user-supplied quals being pushed down (modulo LEAKPROOF quals).
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Craig Ringer, Simon Riggs, KaiGai Kohei
Previously, unless all columns were auto-updateable, we wouldn't
inserts, updates, or deletes, or at least not without a rule or trigger;
now, we'll allow inserts and updates that target only the auto-updateable
columns, and deletes even if there are no auto-updateable columns at
all provided the view definition is otherwise suitable.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Marko Tiikkaja
For simple views which are automatically updatable, this patch allows
the user to specify what level of checking should be done on records
being inserted or updated. For 'LOCAL CHECK', new tuples are validated
against the conditionals of the view they are being inserted into, while
for 'CASCADED CHECK' the new tuples are validated against the
conditionals for all views involved (from the top down).
This option is part of the SQL specification.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Pavel Stehule
An INSERT into such a view should work just like an INSERT into its base
table, ie the insertion should go directly into that table ... not be
duplicated into each child table, as was happening before, per bug #8275
from Rushabh Lathia. On the other hand, the current behavior for
UPDATE/DELETE seems reasonable: the update/delete traverses the child
tables, or not, depending on whether the view specifies ONLY or not.
Add some regression tests covering this area.
Dean Rasheed
This patch makes "simple" views automatically updatable, without the need
to create either INSTEAD OF triggers or INSTEAD rules. "Simple" views
are those classified as updatable according to SQL-92 rules. The rewriter
transforms INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE commands on such views directly into an
equivalent command on the underlying table, which will generally have
noticeably better performance than is possible with either triggers or
user-written rules. A view that has INSTEAD OF triggers or INSTEAD rules
continues to operate the same as before.
For the moment, security_barrier views are not considered simple.
Also, we do not support WITH CHECK OPTION. These features may be
added in future.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Amit Kapila
Peter Eisentraut
Stephen Frost
Robert Haas
Tom Lane