Re: Different results from identical matviews

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Anders Steinlein <anders(at)e5r(dot)no>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Different results from identical matviews
Date: 2020-07-02 22:25:38
Message-ID: 891329.1593728738@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Anders Steinlein <anders(at)e5r(dot)no> writes:
> Am I right in thinking that we should actually go over (i.e. re-create) all
> functions and views defined before this dump/restore where we're using JOIN
> ... USING (citext_column)? We most definitely have many more such cases,
> since this is the common (perhaps naive) way we've written joins (unless
> there are obvious reasons to be explicit). :-/

If it's not clear to you how this matview came to be different from
the rest, then it certainly seems likely that other ones might have
the same disease.

Note that functions don't really have this sort of issue, since they're
just stored as text. Only a view or matview would preserve creation-time
decisions about interpretation.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adam Brusselback 2020-07-02 23:29:02 Re: Does TOAST really compress the complete row?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-07-02 22:15:50 Re: Does TOAST really compress the complete row?