|From:||"Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|To:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> On Aug 18, 2018, at 11:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2018-Aug-18, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>>> On Aug 18, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 18, 2018, at 8:45 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Oops, too much multitasking. I will attach the correct patch when I get home.
>> Here is the correct patch, sorry about that. This includes aforementioned
> I ran the test without the code change, and it passes. I don't think
> it's testing what you think it is testing.
So I ran the tests against 10.5 unpatched and it failed as expected. I then
ran it against HEAD unpatched and it passed.
Digging into it, it appears the issue was resolved in this commit for 11
and beyond. As the plan is not to backpatch, I’ll withdraw my patch.
Thanks for the help,
|Next Message||Nico Williams||2018-08-19 18:27:05||Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works|
|Previous Message||Alvaro Herrera||2018-08-19 15:20:37||Re: [GSoC] Summery of pg performance farm|