On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:06 AM Anders Steinlein <and...@e5r.no> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 3:55 PM David G. Johnston < > david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thursday, July 2, 2020, Anders Steinlein <and...@e5r.no> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I just wanted to add that we're on Postgres 12.3. This matview has been >>> with us since 9.4 days, and we have not experienced any such issues before >>> (could be customers who haven't noticed or reported it to us, of course...). >>> version >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> PostgreSQL 12.3 (Ubuntu 12.3-1.pgdg18.04+1) on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, >>> compiled by gcc (Ubuntu 7.5.0-3ubuntu1~18.04) 7.5.0, 64-bit >>> >> >> >> I concur that the determinism doesn’t seem like a problem - but not much >> else does either. As a shot in the dark does pg_depend show any >> differences between the dependencies for the two views? >> > > Could be worth checking, yes. Could you give me any guidance as to how to > compare this? Never looked at pg_depend before -- which of the columns > should have the oid for the matview I want to look up dependencies for? > It would be an educational/trial-and-error experience for me as well. That you found a difference in pg_rewrite.ev_action probably provides a more fruitful avenue of attack though I'm inexperienced there as well. I do believe that inspecting pg_depend will also highlight whatever difference you are seeing in the ev_action. What tickles my curiosity is why that difference (whatever it is, I haven't looked) isn't manifesting in the \d+ output for the materialized view. David J.
