| From: | Chad Trabant <chad(at)iris(dot)washington(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15044: materialized views incompatibility with logical replication in postgres 10 |
| Date: | 2018-02-02 01:39:27 |
| Message-ID: | 161542b1c98.27af.478e5036e088b5aaf247fa13bcb9f071@iris.washington.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On February 1, 2018 17:16:08 "David G. Johnston"
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Bug reference: 15044
>
> It seems the work-around is to not use "for all tables" in your publication
> definition.
Indeed. My real world case 700+ tables with semi regular additions and two
materialized views so ALL TABLES was the right fit.
> As described it does seem bugged. The table matview itself is not being
> published, as documented, but knowledge of its existence as part of the
> publication is...
Exactly. The matview does not show up in pg_publication_tables but it's
registered at some level.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-02-02 01:49:39 | Re: BUG #14952: COPY fails to fill in IDENTITY column default value |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2018-02-02 01:16:04 | BUG #15044: materialized views incompatibility with logical replication in postgres 10 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-02-02 01:59:33 | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-02-02 01:35:40 | Re: Cancelling parallel query leads to segfault |