On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> wrote:
> There is one odd aspect to pg_dump, but I think the way it is
> behaving is the best way to handle it, although I invite other
> opinions. If you load from pg_dump output, it will try to
> populated materialized views which were populated on dump, and
> leave the ones which were not scannable because the contents had
> not been generated in an empty and unscannable state on restore.
> That much seems pretty obvious. Where it gets a little tricky is
> if mva is generated with data, and mvb is generated based on mva.
> Then mva is truncated. Then you dump. mvb was populated at the
> time of the dump, but its contents can't be regenerated on restore
> because mva is not scannable. As the patch currently stands, you
> get an error on the attempt to REFRESH mvb. I think that's a good
> thing, but I'm open to arguments to the contrary.
Hmm, anything that means a dump-and-restore can fail seems like a bad
thing to me. There's nothing outrageous about that scenario. It's
arguable what state dump-and-restore should leave the new database in,
but I don't see why it shouldn't work. I predict we'll end up with
unhappy users if we leave it like this.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
