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: