Re: Change in "policy" on dump ordering?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Change in "policy" on dump ordering?
Date: 2017-03-04 19:49:36
Message-ID: 753dcafc-a648-9041-e9ca-e405cd4498f4@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/1/17 08:36, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2/22/17 18:24, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>> Yes, by that logic matview refresh should always be last.
>>
>> Patches for head attached.
>>
>> RLS was the first item added after DO_REFRESH_MATVIEW, which was added
>> in 9.5. So if we want to treat this as a bug, they'd need to be patched
>> as well, which is a simple matter of swapping 33 and 34.
>
> I wonder whether we should emphasize this change by assigning
> DO_REFRESH_MATVIEW a higher number, like 100?

Since there wasn't any interest in that idea, I have committed Jim's
patch as is.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-03-04 20:41:53 Re: Re: check failure with -DRELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE -DCLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-03-04 19:42:23 Re: PATCH: pageinspect / add page_checksum and bt_page_items(bytea)