| 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: | 2023-06-28 22:57:40 |
| Message-ID: | ZJy65NH4MuOuuaBW@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 08:11:51AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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.
There was something that was itching me a little bit here: shouldn't
we also switch the AM dependency of the second relation? In the
context of a table rewrite, the new relation is temporary and quickly
dropped after the relation files are swapped, but that may not be the
case of all the callers of swap_relation_files() depending on the
persistency of what they swap and what they want to do.
Thoughts?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Fix-pg_depend-entry-to-AMs-after-ALTER-TABLE-.-SE.patch | text/x-diff | 9.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-06-29 01:25:33 | Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2023-06-28 21:57:47 | Re: BUG #17994: Invalidating relcache corrupts tupDesc inside ExecEvalFieldStoreDeForm() |