Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Remove tab completion for CREATE UNLOGGED MATERIALIZED VIEW.

  2. Add tab completion for CREATE SCHEMA in psql

  3. Disallow unlogged materialized views.

  4. Add a materialized view relations.

  1. CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW

    px shi <spxlyy123@gmail.com> — 2024-07-25T11:48:01Z

    Hi, I see that materialized view cannot be unlogged now, but when I use
psql and type CREATE UNLOGGED, pressing the Tab key for auto-completion
suggests `TABLE` and MATERIALIZED VIEW.
Shouldn't `MATERIALIZED VIEW ` be suggested?

  2. Re: CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org> — 2024-07-25T13:56:07Z

    px shi <spxlyy123@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi, I see that materialized view cannot be unlogged now, but when I use
> psql and type CREATE UNLOGGED, pressing the Tab key for auto-completion
> suggests `TABLE` and MATERIALIZED VIEW.
> Shouldn't `MATERIALIZED VIEW ` be suggested?

That's my fault, I added it in commit c951e9042dd1, presumably because
the grammar allows it, but it turns transformCreateTableAsStmt() rejects
it.

Attached is a patch to fix it, which sholud be backpatched to v17.

- ilmari

  3. Re: CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org> — 2024-07-25T14:09:09Z

    Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org> writes:

> px shi <spxlyy123@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi, I see that materialized view cannot be unlogged now, but when I use
>> psql and type CREATE UNLOGGED, pressing the Tab key for auto-completion
>> suggests `TABLE` and MATERIALIZED VIEW.
>> Shouldn't `MATERIALIZED VIEW ` be suggested?
>
> That's my fault, I added it in commit c951e9042dd1, presumably because
> the grammar allows it, but it turns transformCreateTableAsStmt() rejects
> it.

Scratch that, I misread the diff. The tab completion has been there
since matviews were added in commit 3bf3ab8c5636, but the restriction on
unlogged matviews was added later in commit 3223b25ff73, which failed to
update the tab completion code to match.

Here's a updated patch with a corrected commit message.

- ilmari

  4. Re: CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2024-07-25T14:38:30Z

    On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:09:09PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Scratch that, I misread the diff. The tab completion has been there
> since matviews were added in commit 3bf3ab8c5636, but the restriction on
> unlogged matviews was added later in commit 3223b25ff73, which failed to
> update the tab completion code to match.

As noted a few years ago [0], the commit message for 3223b25ff73 indicates
this was intentional:

	I left the grammar and tab-completion support for CREATE UNLOGGED
	MATERIALIZED VIEW in place, since it's harmless and allows delivering a
	more specific error message about the unsupported feature.

However, since it looks like the feature was never actually supported in a
release, and the revert has been in place for over a decade, I think it'd
be reasonable to remove the tab completion now.  It looks like the folks on
the 2021 thread felt similarly.

[0] https://postgr.es/m/flat/ZR0P278MB092093E92263DE16734208A5D2C59%40ZR0P278MB0920.CHEP278.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM

-- 
nathan

  5. Re: CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org> — 2024-07-25T14:49:02Z

    Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:09:09PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> Scratch that, I misread the diff. The tab completion has been there
>> since matviews were added in commit 3bf3ab8c5636, but the restriction on
>> unlogged matviews was added later in commit 3223b25ff73, which failed to
>> update the tab completion code to match.
>
> As noted a few years ago [0], the commit message for 3223b25ff73 indicates
> this was intentional:
>
> 	I left the grammar and tab-completion support for CREATE UNLOGGED
> 	MATERIALIZED VIEW in place, since it's harmless and allows delivering a
> 	more specific error message about the unsupported feature.

D'oh, I'm clearly struggling with reading things properly today.

> However, since it looks like the feature was never actually supported in a
> release, and the revert has been in place for over a decade, I think it'd
> be reasonable to remove the tab completion now.  It looks like the folks on
> the 2021 thread felt similarly.

Keeping it in the grammar makes sense for the more specific error
message, but I don't think the tab completion should be suggesting bogus
things, regardless of whether it's the grammar or the parse analysis
that rejects it.

> [0] https://postgr.es/m/flat/ZR0P278MB092093E92263DE16734208A5D2C59%40ZR0P278MB0920.CHEP278.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM

- ilmari

  6. Re: CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2024-07-25T14:54:01Z

    On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
>> However, since it looks like the feature was never actually supported in a
>> release, and the revert has been in place for over a decade, I think it'd
>> be reasonable to remove the tab completion now.  It looks like the folks on
>> the 2021 thread felt similarly.
> 
> Keeping it in the grammar makes sense for the more specific error
> message, but I don't think the tab completion should be suggesting bogus
> things, regardless of whether it's the grammar or the parse analysis
> that rejects it.

Would you mind creating a commitfest entry for this one?  I'll plan on
committing this early next week unless any objections materialize.

-- 
nathan

  7. Re: CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org> — 2024-07-25T15:10:37Z

    Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
>>> However, since it looks like the feature was never actually supported in a
>>> release, and the revert has been in place for over a decade, I think it'd
>>> be reasonable to remove the tab completion now.  It looks like the folks on
>>> the 2021 thread felt similarly.
>> 
>> Keeping it in the grammar makes sense for the more specific error
>> message, but I don't think the tab completion should be suggesting bogus
>> things, regardless of whether it's the grammar or the parse analysis
>> that rejects it.
>
> Would you mind creating a commitfest entry for this one?  I'll plan on
> committing this early next week unless any objections materialize.

Done: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/49/5139/

I've taken the liberty of setting you as the committer, and the target
version to 17 even though it turns out to be an older bug, since it's
arguably a follow-on fix to the incomplete fix in c951e9042dd1.

- ilmari

  8. Re: CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2024-07-25T15:20:54Z

    On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 04:10:37PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Done: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/49/5139/
> 
> I've taken the liberty of setting you as the committer, and the target
> version to 17 even though it turns out to be an older bug, since it's
> arguably a follow-on fix to the incomplete fix in c951e9042dd1.

Thanks.  I'm -1 on back-patching since it was intentionally left around and
is basically harmless.

-- 
nathan

  9. Re: CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2024-07-29T16:38:42Z

    Committed.

-- 
nathan

  10. Re: CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org> — 2024-07-29T16:53:47Z

    Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:

> Committed.

Thanks!

- ilmari