On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 08:24:16PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> wrote: > > There is one odd aspect to pg_dump, but I think the way it is > > behaving is the best way to handle it, although I invite other > > opinions. If you load from pg_dump output, it will try to > > populated materialized views which were populated on dump, and > > leave the ones which were not scannable because the contents had > > not been generated in an empty and unscannable state on restore. > > That much seems pretty obvious. Where it gets a little tricky is > > if mva is generated with data, and mvb is generated based on mva. > > Then mva is truncated. Then you dump. mvb was populated at the > > time of the dump, but its contents can't be regenerated on restore > > because mva is not scannable. As the patch currently stands, you > > get an error on the attempt to REFRESH mvb. I think that's a good > > thing, but I'm open to arguments to the contrary. > > Hmm, anything that means a dump-and-restore can fail seems like a bad > thing to me. There's nothing outrageous about that scenario. It's > arguable what state dump-and-restore should leave the new database in, > but I don't see why it shouldn't work. I predict we'll end up with > unhappy users if we leave it like this.
pg_upgrade is going to fail on that pg_restore error. :-( -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
