Re: Materialized view assertion failure in HEAD - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: Materialized view assertion failure in HEAD
Date
Msg-id 1363805862.41772.YahooMailNeo@web162902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Materialized view assertion failure in HEAD  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Materialized view assertion failure in HEAD  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> wrote:
>> I want to give everyone else a chance to weigh in before I start
>> the pendulum swinging back in the other direction on OIDs in MVs.
>> Opinions?
>
> I agree that it's probably better to just disallow this, but I have to
> admit I don't like your proposed patch much.  It seems to me that the
> right place to fix this is in interpretOidsOption(), by returning
> false rather than default_with_oids whenever the relation is a
> materialized view.  That would require passing the relkind as an
> additional argument to interpretOidsOption(), but that doesn't seem
> problematic.

I like it.  It seems to be less of a modularity violation than my
suggestion, and if we're going to have kluges for oids, we might as
well keep them together rather than scattering them around.

> Then, the parser could just error out if OIDS=anything appears in the
> options list, but it wouldn't need to actually kludge the options list
> as you've done here.

Right.

Any other comments?

--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Let's invent a function to report lock-wait-blocking PIDs
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Let's invent a function to report lock-wait-blocking PIDs