| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message |
| Date: | 2018-08-19 00:45:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20180819004536.GA1785@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 03:38:47PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Saturday, August 18, 2018, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
>> I was referring to:
>>
>> "Materialized views are a type of relation so it is not wrong, just one
>> of many instances where we generalize to "relation" based in implementation
>> details ins team of being explicit about which type of relation is being
>> affected."
>>
>> As being push back.
>>
>> I don't have an opinion on back patching this.
>
> I was arguing against back patching on the basis of defining this as a
> bug. It's not wrong nor severe enough to warrant the side effects others
> have noted.
I am not so sure about v11 as it is very close to release, surely we can
do something for HEAD as that's cosmetic. Anyway, if something is
proposed, could a patch be posted? The only patch I am seeing on this
thread refers to improvements for error messages of procedures.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2018-08-19 00:52:45 | Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2018-08-18 22:38:47 | Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message |