"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've applied the patch but am loathe to force an initdb this late in
>> the beta cycle. Any opinions out there?
> Annoying as a spelling mistake is (and, from my read of the above, that is
> all it is?), I don't thnk it warrants forcing an initdb ... unless I'm
> missing a larger scope?
The problem is that the spelling mistake causes the view to fail in the
right circumstances. I believe you need to be a non-superuser and to do
"select * from information_schema.tables" when there is at least one
table that you don't own and have no privileges for. That's not a very
unusual set of circumstances, so it verges on saying that that view is
unusable without the fix. information_schema.views and
information_schema.columns have the identical problem.
We do not *have* to force initdb --- any adopters of beta5 or RC1 who
run into this problem can be told to recreate those views with the
corrected definitions. A quick "CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW" as superuser
ought to do it. So it's just an issue of cleanliness of the release.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
