| From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "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 22:04:57 |
| Message-ID: | CADK3HHJfve0+Y0h6ARfwJt=rxk5ZTiAD0iW_+8F4F8c+1ECBXg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 at 17:48, 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, and (b) people tend to get
> annoyed by unnecessary behavior changes in released branches.
>
I was referring to:
"Materialized views are a type of relation so it is not wrong, just one of
many instances where we generalize to "relation" based in implementation
details ins team of being explicit about which type of relation is being
affected."
As being push back.
I don't have an opinion on back patching this.
Dave Cramer
davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
www.postgresintl.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2018-08-18 22:38:47 | Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2018-08-18 21:52:32 | Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message |