Re: [HACKERS] Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews?

2016-11-10 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-11-09 12:55:51 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> The system will let you set the "user_catalog_table" reloption to "true" >>> on a materialized view. Is this sensible, or is

Re: [HACKERS] Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews?

2016-11-10 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-11-09 12:55:51 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > The system will let you set the "user_catalog_table" reloption to "true" > > on a materialized view. Is this sensible, or is it a bug caused by the > > fact that

Re: [HACKERS] Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews?

2016-11-09 Thread Craig Ringer
On 10 November 2016 at 01:55, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The system will let you set the "user_catalog_table" reloption to "true" >> on a materialized view. Is this sensible, or is it a bug caused by the >>

Re: [HACKERS] Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews?

2016-11-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > The system will let you set the "user_catalog_table" reloption to "true" > on a materialized view. Is this sensible, or is it a bug caused by the > fact that reloptions.c fails to distinguish matviews from heaps at all? > >