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
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? |