Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: BUG #16119: pg_dump omits columns specification for matviews
From: Gmail <dmitry.telpt@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3391.1573952559@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 11:08:29 -0800
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <06CC2CBF-E6A0-47A7-AFD0-90E7B1E59365@gmail.com>
References: <16119-e64823f30a45a754@postgresql.org>
 <3391.1573952559@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Tom,

Sorry for a little delay in response, there was no email access over the wee=
kend =3D)
You know, everything that seems to be ugly for developer maybe 'desired' for=
 customer and contrary in real world.

So, in our case, we're not owner or primary user of schema, only consume dat=
a that is maintained by another app and there is inter-team agreement that w=
e can ONLY have views in their schema, that's a cause of such 'strange' solu=
tion.

Thanks for a fast feedback and great job!
Just a question, will the fix be back-ported to current supported branches l=
ike 9.4/9.5/9.6 or only included in 12?

Thank you again,
Dmitry

> On Nov 16, 2019, at 5:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>=20
> PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
>> We've faced up with an issue how pg_dump exports materialzed views, it
>> doesn't export columns declaration that is legal parameter of CREATE DDL
>> instruction.
>=20
> I figured out what was going wrong here and pushed a fix for it.
> I'm still a bit curious about the real use-case, since a materialized
> view made from just a VALUES clause seems a bit pointless.
>=20
>            regards, tom lane