Re: Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews?
От
Andres Freund
Тема
Re: Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews?
Дата
Msg-id
20161110115412.qp6yhslhwurxue4a@alap3.anarazel.de
Ответ на
Re: Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews? (Robert Haas)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews? Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews? Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews? Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
On 2016-11-09 12:55:51 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > The system will let you set the "user_catalog_table" reloption to "true" > > on a materialized view. Is this sensible, or is it a bug caused by the > > fact that reloptions.c fails to distinguish matviews from heaps at all? > > > > If it is sensible, then I broke it in e3e66d8a9 ... > > I can understand what that combination of opens would mean from a > semantic point of view, so I don't think it's insensible. However, it > doesn't seem like an important combination to support, and I suspect > that the fact that we did was accidental. I don't see it as being important either. I suspect we intentionally didn't exclude it, but less because of a use-case and more because there didn't seem to be a need to. Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Дата: