On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 03:56:31PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 6:08 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> I am not sure that I see the point of using a random() number here >> while the backend ID, or just the PID, would easily provide enough >> entropy for this internal alias. I agree that "mv" is a bad choice >> for this alias name. One thing that comes in mind here is to use an >> alias similar to what we do for dropped attributes, say >> ........pg.matview.%d........ where %d is the PID. This will very >> unlikely cause conflicts. > > I agree that backend ID and/or PID is enough. I'm not fully convinced > with using random(). To make it more concrete, how about something > like pg.matview.%d.%d (MyBackendId, MyProcPid)? If the user still sees > some collisions, then IMHO, it's better to ensure that this kind of > table/alias names are not generated outside of the server.
There is no need to have the PID if MyBackendId is enough, so after considering it I would just choose something like what I quoted above. Don't we need also to worry about the queries using newdata, newdata2 and diff as aliases? Would you like to implement a patch doing something like that? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
