Re: Materialized view assertion failure in HEAD

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
Cc: Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Materialized view assertion failure in HEAD
Date: 2013-03-15 22:36:36
Message-ID: 1021.1363386996@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> The presence of default_with_oids and the special-handling of the
> oids option via interpretOidsOption() makes it hard to come up with
> a solution which would qualify as "elegant". Here's a rough cut at
> an approach which seems best to me. If this sits well with others
> I'll add comments and think about that error message some more.

This seems even grottier than the other way. I was expecting that it
should be taken care of during parse analysis; the grammar doesn't
have much more business than the executor dealing with this issue.

Let me think about it and see if I can propose a better fix.

> I'm not entirely sure I like accepting WITH (oids = false) but
> throwing an error on WITH (oids = true), but it seems marginally
> better than rejecting both.

Hm --- we'd need to deal with that issue regardless of just where in the
code it's going to happen. I think we definitely need to reject
WITH (oids = true), if that's not to be supported, but have less of
an opinion about the other.

BTW, is there a really solid reason why a matview couldn't be allowed to
have OIDs on demand, and thereby dodge this whole problem? I'm thinking
that the analogy to regular views not having OIDs is not a very good
argument, because certainly matview rows are going to need all the other
system columns.

[ wanders away wondering why IntoClause has grown a relkind field... ]

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-03-15 22:42:29 Re: Should array_length() Return NULL
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2013-03-15 22:08:37 Re: Should array_length() Return NULL