Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.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."
