On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Thanks for updating the patch! >>> Attached is the updated version of the patch. >>> I removed unnecessary assertion check and change of source code >>> that you added, and improved the source comment. >>> Barring objection, I'll commit this patch. >> >> So, this code basically duplicates what is already in >> refresh_by_match_merge to check if there is a UNIQUE index defined. If >> we are sure that an error is detected earlier in the code as done in >> this patch, wouldn't it be better to replace the error message in >> refresh_by_match_merge() by an assertion? > > I'm OK with an assertion if we add source comment about why > refresh_by_match_merge() can always guarantee that there is > a unique index on the matview. Probably it's because the matview > is locked with exclusive lock at the start of ExecRefreshMatView(), > i.e., it's guaranteed that we cannot drop any indexes on the matview > after the first check is passed. Also it might be better to add > another comment about that the caller of refresh_by_match_merge() > must always check that there is a unique index on the matview before > calling that function, just in the case where it's called elsewhere > in the future. > > OTOH, I don't think it's not so bad idea to just emit an error, instead.
Sorry, s/it's not/it's Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers