Re: BUG #13907: Restore materialized view throw permission denied
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #13907: Restore materialized view throw permission denied |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1152.1466094507@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #13907: Restore materialized view throw permission denied (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #13907: Restore materialized view throw permission denied
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes: > So, I have been able to build the attached WIP patch proving that this > is able to work correctly. There is no real refactoring done yet, but > this passes regression tests and tutti-quanti. By the way, there are > three points I am wondering about: > 1) EXPLAIN ANALYZE is able to work with CTAS and create matview. I am > thinking that it would be better not to touch those to not impact > existing applications. By that I mean that EXPLAIN CREATE MATVIEW WITH > NO DATA would still run the planner and executor in explain.c Agreed, that needs to not break. > 2) CTAS has a WITH NO DATA option, and it would be really weird to use > the planner/executor code path when this option is used for this case. > So I'd like to use the same method for both matviews and normal > relations to simplify things and make the code more consistent. Seems reasonable, depending on how invasive you have to be. > 3) In this WIP patch, the command tag is CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW if > WITH NO DATA is used. I am planning to use SELECT 0 in all cases to > keep things consistent with what is on HEAD and back-branches. Meh, can't get excited about that. If it's easy, okay, but arguably the current behavior is just an implementation artifact itself. I wouldn't go far out of your way to keep it. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: