pg.ddx.io pgsql-docs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedViews "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
12+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
@ 2022-12-02 20:51 Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:14 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:33 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Lemig @ 2022-12-02 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Hi,
I am running Postgres 12.9 on FreeBSD.
I had a developer ask me the best way to determine a view's dependencies
(i.e. which tables/views are used in a view's query). In Oracle, I would
use the ALL_DEPENDENCIES dictionary view. I found a view called
information_schema.view_table_usage (VTU) in the Postgres docs. This does
the trick. However, the view the developer is interested in is not listed
when I query the VTU view.
Looking at the documentation for the VTU view, it does state - "A table is
only included if that table is owned by a currently enabled role."
I am able to look at the view's query by using "\d+ schema_name.view_name"
and can see which objects are associated with the view. I have confirmed I
am logged in as the role that owns all associated objects (i.e. the view,
plus all objects that are part of the view's SELECT.).
If I run the following:
select viewname from pg_views where schemaname = 'event' order by 1;
I see there are 7 views in the event schema. However, when I run this:
select distinct view_name from information_schema.view_table_usage where
view_schema = 'event' order by 1;
There are only 6 views listed. And the one that I'm interested in is, of
course, not listed.
I've also tried playing around with the search_path (e.g. making sure it
includes the schemas of all objects associated with the view), but still no
luck. Every time I query VTU, it only shows 6 of the 7 views in the event
schema.
Has anybody ever encountered this, and if so, did you find a resolution?
Or perhaps there other limitations with the VTU that I'm unaware of?
Thanks!
Jon
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
2022-12-02 20:51 Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
@ 2022-12-02 21:14 ` David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:55 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: David G. Johnston @ 2022-12-02 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 1:52 PM Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
> Has anybody ever encountered this, and if so, did you find a resolution?
> Or perhaps there other limitations with the VTU that I'm unaware of?
>
>
Well, the query itself is available in the source code if you want to
experiment on your own. Otherwise, I suggest you produce a self-contained
example that fails to produce one or more rows in view_table_usage that you
believe should be present. Whether it is a bug report or trying to point
out what you are misunderstanding, diagnosing this situation with the
information you've provided is not a productive activity.
David J.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
2022-12-02 20:51 Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:14 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
@ 2022-12-02 21:55 ` Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 22:14 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Lemig @ 2022-12-02 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Hi David,
This is specifically what I'm seeing:
drps=> \c
psql (12.11, server 12.9)
You are now connected to database "drps" as user "drps".
drps=> show search_path;
search_path
------------------------
"$user", public, event
(1 row)
drps=> select viewowner, schemaname, viewname from pg_views where viewname
= 'platform_version_v';
viewowner | schemaname | viewname
-----------+------------+--------------------
drps | event | platform_version_v
(1 row)
drps=> select * from information_schema.view_table_usage where view_name =
'platform_version_v';
view_catalog | view_schema | view_name | table_catalog | table_schema |
table_name
--------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+--------------+------------
(0 rows)
The event.platform_version_v doesn't show up when querying the
view_table_usage view. All other views in the event schema are present
when querying that view. For example:
drps=> select * from information_schema.view_table_usage where view_name =
'tv_lineup_v';
view_catalog | view_schema | view_name | table_catalog | table_schema |
table_name
--------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------------
drps | event | tv_lineup_v | drps | event |
tv_lineup
I'll take a look at the VTU view's DDL and see what else I can find.
Thanks!
Jon
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 3:15 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 1:52 PM Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Has anybody ever encountered this, and if so, did you find a resolution?
>> Or perhaps there other limitations with the VTU that I'm unaware of?
>>
>>
> Well, the query itself is available in the source code if you want to
> experiment on your own. Otherwise, I suggest you produce a self-contained
> example that fails to produce one or more rows in view_table_usage that you
> believe should be present. Whether it is a bug report or trying to point
> out what you are misunderstanding, diagnosing this situation with the
> information you've provided is not a productive activity.
>
> David J.
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
2022-12-02 20:51 Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:14 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:55 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
@ 2022-12-02 22:14 ` Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Erik Wienhold @ 2022-12-02 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>; David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
> On 02/12/2022 22:55 CET Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> drps=> select viewowner, schemaname, viewname from pg_views where viewname = 'platform_version_v';
> viewowner | schemaname | viewname
> -----------+------------+--------------------
> drps | event | platform_version_v
> (1 row)
>
> drps=> select * from information_schema.view_table_usage where view_name = 'platform_version_v';
> view_catalog | view_schema | view_name | table_catalog | table_schema | table_name
> --------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+--------------+------------
> (0 rows)
>
> The event.platform_version_v doesn't show up when querying the view_table_usage view.
Does platform_version_v reference any tables? That view name suggests that it
provides some version info, e.g. with a definition like:
create view event.platform_version_v as select '1.0.0' as version;
In that case it won't appear in view_table_usage.
--
Erik
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
2022-12-02 20:51 Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
@ 2022-12-02 21:33 ` Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
2022-12-02 22:08 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
2022-12-02 22:14 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Erik Wienhold @ 2022-12-02 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>; pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
> On 02/12/2022 21:51 CET Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Has anybody ever encountered this, and if so, did you find a resolution?
> Or perhaps there other limitations with the VTU that I'm unaware of?
Is the one view you cannot find in view_table_usage a materialized view?
Because those are not covered by view_table_usage[1].
[1] https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blob;f=src/backend/catalog/information_schema....
--
Erik
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
2022-12-02 20:51 Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:33 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
@ 2022-12-02 22:08 ` Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Erik Wienhold @ 2022-12-02 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>; pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
> On 02/12/2022 22:33 CET Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> wrote:
>
>
> > On 02/12/2022 21:51 CET Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Has anybody ever encountered this, and if so, did you find a resolution?
> > Or perhaps there other limitations with the VTU that I'm unaware of?
>
> Is the one view you cannot find in view_table_usage a materialized view?
> Because those are not covered by view_table_usage[1].
>
> [1] https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blob;f=src/backend/catalog/information_schema....
Never mind. I forgot that you wrote that it appears in pg_views. So it's a plain view.
--
Erik
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
2022-12-02 20:51 Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:33 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
@ 2022-12-02 22:14 ` Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 22:22 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-05 18:18 ` Fwd: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Lemig @ 2022-12-02 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>; +Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Hi Erik - sorry I missed your reply when I replied to David's. That is
indeed the issue. The object that the view is querying is a materialized
view.
Thanks for the link.
Jon
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 3:33 PM Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> wrote:
> > On 02/12/2022 21:51 CET Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Has anybody ever encountered this, and if so, did you find a resolution?
> > Or perhaps there other limitations with the VTU that I'm unaware of?
>
> Is the one view you cannot find in view_table_usage a materialized view?
> Because those are not covered by view_table_usage[1].
>
> [1]
> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blob;f=src/backend/catalog/information_schema....
>
> --
> Erik
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
2022-12-02 20:51 Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:33 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
2022-12-02 22:14 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
@ 2022-12-02 22:22 ` Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 22:47 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Lemig @ 2022-12-02 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>; +Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
It probably wouldn't hurt to have that added to the documentation.
I'll post a message to pgsql-docs. Thanks again!
Jon
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 4:14 PM Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Erik - sorry I missed your reply when I replied to David's. That is
> indeed the issue. The object that the view is querying is a materialized
> view.
>
> Thanks for the link.
>
> Jon
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 3:33 PM Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> wrote:
>
>> > On 02/12/2022 21:51 CET Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Has anybody ever encountered this, and if so, did you find a resolution?
>> > Or perhaps there other limitations with the VTU that I'm unaware of?
>>
>> Is the one view you cannot find in view_table_usage a materialized view?
>> Because those are not covered by view_table_usage[1].
>>
>> [1]
>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blob;f=src/backend/catalog/information_schema....
>>
>> --
>> Erik
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
2022-12-02 20:51 Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:33 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
2022-12-02 22:14 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 22:22 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
@ 2022-12-02 22:47 ` Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
2022-12-02 23:11 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Erik Wienhold @ 2022-12-02 22:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
> On 02/12/2022 23:22 CET Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It probably wouldn't hurt to have that added to the documentation. I'll post
> a message to pgsql-docs. Thanks again!
>
> Jon
Good idea!
Could it be a bug? Materialized views are a Postgres extension[1] (I always
thought they are standard.) But I'd expect them to be included when talking
about "views". Maybe they are not included because they are considered being
closer to physical tables[2] than views. Yet their dependencies would justify
inclusion in view_table_usage.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/sql-creatematerializedview.html, see Compatibility
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/release-9-3.html#AEN119452
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 4:14 PM Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Erik - sorry I missed your reply when I replied to David's. That is
> > indeed the issue. The object that the view is querying is a materialized
> > view.
> >
> > Thanks for the link.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 3:33 PM Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> wrote:
> > > > On 02/12/2022 21:51 CET Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Has anybody ever encountered this, and if so, did you find a resolution?
> > > > Or perhaps there other limitations with the VTU that I'm unaware of?
> > >
> > > Is the one view you cannot find in view_table_usage a materialized view?
> > > Because those are not covered by view_table_usage[1].
> > >
> > > [1] https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blob;f=src/backend/catalog/information_schema....
> > >
> > > --
> > > Erik
--
Erik
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
2022-12-02 20:51 Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:33 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
2022-12-02 22:14 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 22:22 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 22:47 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
@ 2022-12-02 23:11 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2022-12-05 17:47 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2022-12-02 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>; +Cc: Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>; pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> writes:
> Could it be a bug? Materialized views are a Postgres extension[1] (I always
> thought they are standard.) But I'd expect them to be included when talking
> about "views". Maybe they are not included because they are considered being
> closer to physical tables[2] than views. Yet their dependencies would justify
> inclusion in view_table_usage.
The reasoning is that the information_schema views are defined by the
SQL standard and therefore should only show content that matches the
standard. Thus, they ignore PG-invented objects like matviews and
sequences. Some other projects adopt more liberal views about
what should be shown in those views, but that one is our policy.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
2022-12-02 20:51 Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:33 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
2022-12-02 22:14 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 22:22 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 22:47 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
2022-12-02 23:11 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
@ 2022-12-05 17:47 ` Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Lemig @ 2022-12-05 17:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>; pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Oh ok. Not to cause confusion, but after I suggested I would request an
update to the docs, I thought maybe it would be better to ask if the VTU's
code could be modified to include MVs. So I sent a request to
pgsql-hackers (I think that's the list to use for feature requests). But
from what you're saying, Tom, that may be a fruitless endeavor. If they
reply back "nope", then I'll submit a request to have the documentation
updated.
Thanks for everyone's contributions!
Jon
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> writes:
> > Could it be a bug? Materialized views are a Postgres extension[1] (I
> always
> > thought they are standard.) But I'd expect them to be included when
> talking
> > about "views". Maybe they are not included because they are considered
> being
> > closer to physical tables[2] than views. Yet their dependencies would
> justify
> > inclusion in view_table_usage.
>
> The reasoning is that the information_schema views are defined by the
> SQL standard and therefore should only show content that matches the
> standard. Thus, they ignore PG-invented objects like matviews and
> sequences. Some other projects adopt more liberal views about
> what should be shown in those views, but that one is our policy.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Fwd: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
2022-12-02 20:51 Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:33 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
2022-12-02 22:14 ` Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
@ 2022-12-05 18:18 ` Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Lemig @ 2022-12-05 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Hello,
I'd like to request the documentation be updated to add a note that the
information_schema.view_table_usage view won't include views that query
materialized views.
Thanks!
Jon
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
To: Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
Cc: <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Hi Erik - sorry I missed your reply when I replied to David's. That is
indeed the issue. The object that the view is querying is a materialized
view.
Thanks for the link.
Jon
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 3:33 PM Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> wrote:
> > On 02/12/2022 21:51 CET Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Has anybody ever encountered this, and if so, did you find a resolution?
> > Or perhaps there other limitations with the VTU that I'm unaware of?
>
> Is the one view you cannot find in view_table_usage a materialized view?
> Because those are not covered by view_table_usage[1].
>
> [1]
> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blob;f=src/backend/catalog/information_schema....
>
> --
> Erik
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-12-05 18:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-12-02 20:51 Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:14 ` David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 21:55 ` Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 22:14 ` Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
2022-12-02 21:33 ` Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
2022-12-02 22:08 ` Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
2022-12-02 22:14 ` Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 22:22 ` Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-02 22:47 ` Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
2022-12-02 23:11 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2022-12-05 17:47 ` Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
2022-12-05 18:18 ` Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox