Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> And attached is the patch. I arrived at the conclusion that the
> assertion being broken here just needs to be relaxed a bit so as it
> understands that this code path can be taken by a matview WITH NO
> DATA.
Man, that looks familiar. Didn't we fix a similar oversight somewhere
else, not long ago? Wonder if there are more. But a quick grep for
if_not_exists doesn't find anything, so I'm not quite sure what I'm
half-remembering ...
regards, tom lane