Re: Different results from identical matviews - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Different results from identical matviews
Date
Msg-id 889660.1593726293@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Different results from identical matviews  (Anders Steinlein <anders@e5r.no>)
Responses Re: Different results from identical matviews
List pgsql-general
Anders Steinlein <anders@e5r.no> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 5:43 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Unfortunately,
>> since the reverse-listing of this join is just going to say "USING
>> (email)", there's no way to detect from human-readable output that the
>> interpretation of the USING clauses is different.  (We've contemplated
>> introducing not-SQL-standard syntax to allow flagging such cases, but
>> haven't pulled the trigger on that.)

> If I'm reading this correctly, would this be a "reason" to be more explicit
> when doing joins involving non-standard data types? I.e. would it be
> "safer" to do ON x1.email::citext == x2.email::citext instead of USING (if
> there is any difference at all...)?

Yes, it would be.  Of course then you don't get the "merging" of the two
join output columns into one, so you might have to qualify references a
bit more.

You might find this thread interesting:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ffefc172-a487-aa87-a0e7-472bf29735c8%40gmail.com

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Anders Steinlein
Date:
Subject: Re: Different results from identical matviews
Next
From: Thomas Kellerer
Date:
Subject: Does TOAST really compress the complete row?