On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:40 AM Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > > st 11. 9. 2019 v 7:45 odesílatel Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> napsal: >> >> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 9:09 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > The current example shows the usage of looping in plpgsql, so as such >> > there is no correctness issue, but OTOH there is no harm in updating >> > the example as proposed by Ian Barwick. Does anyone else see any >> > problem with this idea? If we agree to proceed with this update, it >> > might be better to backpatch it for the sake of consistency though I >> > am not sure about that. >> > >> >> While checking the patch in back-branches, I noticed that it doesn't >> get applied to 9.4 due to the way the example forms the string. I >> have done the required changes for 9.4 as well and attached is the >> result. >> > > Is question if for this queries should not be used some from information_schema instead direct access to pg_catalog. > > But I looked now, and we don't see materialized views in information_schema - what is probably bug. >
I think you got the answer of this on a related thread. Do you see any other problems or have any concerns about this?