Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview
Date: 2023-06-27 23:11:51
Message-ID: ZJtst5BUaRnH6JSj@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:23:32AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Should we check changeDependencyFor()'s return value? On a first glance it
> looks like it would be an error to return 0 in this case?

Agreed. I was wondering if this was worth having in this path (other
code paths are rather lax about that), but yes let's do it as there
should not be more than one record in pg_depend.
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Fix-dependencies-under-ALTER-TABLE-SET-ACCESS-MET.patch text/x-diff 4.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2023-06-27 23:19:15 Re: BUG #18000: Access method used by matview can be dropped leaving broken matview
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-06-27 21:44:57 Re: BUG #18003: FATAL: cannot request additional shared memory outside shmem_request_hook