Please find attached the patch for RE-SQL for Materialized view.
Please review and apply the patch.
- Please be consistent with your naming - you have scenarios that mention both mview and MView. Any reason not to call them Materialised Views though?
- I would expect to see more alter steps; e.g. to change the name (thus ensuring that escaping is handled properly for that), to change autovac parameters, update the ACL etc. Whilst we probably cannot cover every possible scenario, we should at least try to get tests that cover all the basics.
- I honestly don't see how this is working (I need coffee maybe!). As far as I can see, the create and alter scenarios for both PG and EPAS use exactly the same parameters apart from the endpoints, yet the comment is being dropped and it's flipping to DATA from NO DATA. Are those actual bugs?
