Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

From: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 21:52:32
Message-ID: 59AC4ADC-278A-440E-93B7-645FAA5BE57F@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> On Aug 18, 2018, at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> writes:
>> This is a simple fix why push back ?
>
> What was being pushed back on, I think, was the claim that this needed to
> be back-patched. I'd be inclined not to, since (a) the message is not
> wrong, only less specific than it could be,

I know I’m being pedantic on this one, but “technically” not wrong, it’s still
incomplete to a user. But...

> and (b) people tend to get
> annoyed by unnecessary behavior changes in released branches.

I will agree with this - thinking about it, people have have coded their apps
to work with the existing message and may have logic around handling it.

I don’t know how likely that is, but I’m willing to err on the side of caution.

> There might be an argument for putting it into v11, but not further back.

I’m fine with that.

Thanks,

Jonathan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2018-08-18 22:04:57 Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2018-08-18 21:52:19 Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message