A view defined as "select <something> where false" had the curious property
that the system wouldn't check whether users had the privileges necessary
to select from it. More generally, permissions checks could be skipped
for tables referenced in sub-selects or views that were proven empty by
constraint exclusion (although some quick testing suggests this seldom
happens in cases of practical interest). This happened because the planner
failed to include rangetable entries for such tables in the finished plan.
This was noticed in connection with erroneous handling of materialized
views, but actually the issue is quite unrelated to matviews. Therefore,
revert commit 200ba1667b in favor of a more
direct test for the real problem.
Back-patch to 9.2 where the bug was introduced (by commit
7741dd6590).
Per report from Hadi Moshayedi of matview regression test failure
with optimization of aggregates. A few ORDER BY clauses improve
code coverage for matviews while solving that problem.
This would have caught a bug in the initial patch, and seems like
a good thing to test going forward.
Per bug report by Erik Rijkers and fix by Tom Lane
A materialized view has a rule just like a view and a heap and
other physical properties like a table. The rule is only used to
populate the table, references in queries refer to the
materialized data.
This is a minimal implementation, but should still be useful in
many cases. Currently data is only populated "on demand" by the
CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW and REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW statements.
It is expected that future releases will add incremental updates
with various timings, and that a more refined concept of defining
what is "fresh" data will be developed. At some point it may even
be possible to have queries use a materialized in place of
references to underlying tables, but that requires the other
above-mentioned features to be working first.
Much of the documentation work by Robert Haas.
Review by Noah Misch, Thom Brown, Robert Haas, Marko Tiikkaja
Security review by KaiGai Kohei, with a decision on how best to
implement sepgsql still pending.
