| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2018-08-18 22:38:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwb7j0i=PmiQBJ7jS34H+dNNrWNkfKGEbZBoYrge0kJy_Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-08-19 00:45:36 | Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2018-08-18 22:04:57 | Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message |