st 11. 9. 2019 v 11:51 odesÃlatel Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> napsal:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:40 AM Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > st 11. 9. 2019 v 7:45 odesÃlatel Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > napsal: > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 9:09 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > The current example shows the usage of looping in plpgsql, so as such > >> > there is no correctness issue, but OTOH there is no harm in updating > >> > the example as proposed by Ian Barwick. Does anyone else see any > >> > problem with this idea? If we agree to proceed with this update, it > >> > might be better to backpatch it for the sake of consistency though I > >> > am not sure about that. > >> > > >> > >> While checking the patch in back-branches, I noticed that it doesn't > >> get applied to 9.4 due to the way the example forms the string. I > >> have done the required changes for 9.4 as well and attached is the > >> result. > >> > > > > Is question if for this queries should not be used some from > information_schema instead direct access to pg_catalog. > > > > But I looked now, and we don't see materialized views in > information_schema - what is probably bug. > > > > I think you got the answer of this on a related thread. Do you see > any other problems or have any concerns about this? > no Pavel > -- > With Regards, > Amit Kapila. > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >
