On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 at 07:49, jian he <jian.universal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 5:34 PM jian he <jian.universal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > hi. > > > > about this issue, > > last email in 2012 (https://postgr.es/m/8967.1353167...@sss.pgh.pa.us) > > """ > > Even if it happens to be trivial in the current patch, it's an added > > functional requirement that we might later regret having cavalierly > > signed up for. And, as noted upthread, relations that support only > > one direction of COPY don't exist at the moment; that would be adding > > an asymmetry that we might later regret, too. > > > > regards, tom lane > > """ > > > > but now we have numerous COPY options that work solely in a single > > direction of COPY. > > I think now we can make some kind of relation (pg_class.relkind) that > > only works in one direction of COPY. > > hi. > patch attached. > also cc to Tom, > since at that time, you are against the idea of ``COPY matview TO``.
Hi! With this patch it is possible to COPY matview TO, but not regular view, which is surprising. Let's fix that? -- Best regards, Kirill Reshke
