Re: Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews?

On 10 November 2016 at 01:55, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The system will let you set the "user_catalog_table" reloption to "true"
>> on a materialized view. Is this sensible, or is it a bug caused by the
>> fact that reloptions.c fails to distinguish matviews from heaps at all?
>>
>> If it is sensible, then I broke it in e3e66d8a9 ...
>
> I can understand what that combination of opens would mean from a
> semantic point of view, so I don't think it's insensible. However, it
> doesn't seem like an important combination to support, and I suspect
> that the fact that we did was accidental.

I think it'll work sanely, but I don't see why it's worth having. User
catalogs are for data you'll want to see consistently during logical
decoding. I don't see why anyone's going to need a matview at that
point. Since it's also untested, I suggest disallowing user catalog
matviews.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services