Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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