On 3/14/19 12:05 PM, Mitar wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:13 AM David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote:
There doesn't seem to be consensus on whether or not we want this patch.
Peter has issues with the way it works and Andres [1] thinks it should
be pushed to PG13 or possibly rejected.
I'll push this to PG13 for now.
Sorry, I am new to PostgreSQL development process. So this has been
pushed for maybe (if at all) release planned for 2020 and is not
anymore in consideration for PG12 to be released this year? From my
very inexperienced eye this looks like a very far push. What is
expected to happen in the year which would make it clearer if this is
something which has a chance of going and/or what should be improved,
if improving is even an option? I worry that nothing will happen for a
year and we will all forget about this and then we will be all to
square zero.
I must say that i do not really see a reason why this would not be
included. I mean, materialized views are really just a sugar on top of
having a table you refresh with a stored query, and if that table can
have triggers, why not also a materialized view.
The reason is that you have not gotten any committer support for this
patch or attracted significant review, that I can see. On the contrary,
three committers have expressed doubts about all or some of the patch
and it doesn't seem to me that their issues have been addressed.
This is also a relatively new patch which makes large changes -- we
generally like to get those in earlier than the second-to-last CF.
I can only spend so much time looking at each patch, so Peter, Álvaro,
or Andres are welcome to jump in and let me know if I have it wrong.
What you need to be doing for PG13 is very specifically addressing
committer concerns and gathering a consensus that the behavior of this
patch is the way to go.
Regards,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
