Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview
От
Andres Freund
Тема
Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview
Дата
Msg-id
20230627182332.uq6afduhvdip7pol@awork3.anarazel.de
Ответ на
Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview (Michael Paquier)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Hi,
On 2023-06-27 15:33:30 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> + /*
> + * Now that pg_class has been updated with its relevant information for
> + * the swap, update the dependency of the relation to point to its new
> + * table AM, if it has changed.
> + */
> + if (relam1 != relam2)
> + {
> + changeDependencyFor(RelationRelationId,
> + r1,
> + AccessMethodRelationId,
> + relam1,
> + relam2);
> + }
Should we check changeDependencyFor()'s return value? On a first glance it
looks like it would be an error to return 0 in this case?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления
От: Nathan Bossart
Дата:
От: PG Bug reporting form
Дата: