From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "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 21:37:59 |
Message-ID: | CADK3HHLQX7NPnXa_E721wJYKtJXpJ-skbUkToZFDwROMx+4iZQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 at 17:30, Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On Aug 18, 2018, at 5:26 PM, David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 18, 2018, Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> wrote:
>>
>> It’s cosmetic, but it’s a cosmetic bug: it incorrectly tells the user
>> that they
>> must be the owner of the “relational” when in reality it’s the
>> materialized view.
>>
>
> 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.
>
>
So why bother having the error message in the code at all then ? Clearly it
was the intent of the author to use this language, unfortunately there was
no test to prove that it works.
This is a simple fix why push back ? Additionally it clarifies exactly what
the problem is for the user as Jonathan points out.
Dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-18 21:48:47 | Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message |
Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2018-08-18 21:30:28 | Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message |