On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:27 PM Tom Lane <
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> In the case of event triggers, the obvious counterexample is that if
> you restore ET A and then ET B, ET A might interfere with the attempt
> to restore ET B. (And we have no way to know whether restoring B
> before A would be better or worse.)
>
Yeap... you're correct.
> So on the whole I find "restore matviews as if they'd been refreshed
> after the restore" to be a more trustworthy approach than the other
> way. At some level we have to trust that ETs aren't going to totally
> bollix the restore.
>
Ok.
> Which, TBH, makes me wonder about the validity of the original complaint
> in this thread. I don't mind delaying ET restore as long as we feasibly
> can; but if you have an ET that is going to misbehave during restore,
> you are in for pain, and it's hard to consider that that pain isn't
> self-inflicted.
>
The proposed patch solve the original complain. I was just trying to understand completely what you pointed out before and I agree with you. Thanks for the clear explanation.
About the patch LGTM and IMHO we should back-patch it to all supported versions.
Regards,
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello Timbira -
http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
