On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 8:13 AM Bharath Rupireddy < bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 1:15 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I don't really see that this feature buys us anything you can't > > get by explaining the view's query, so I think we're better advised > > to keep our options open about how REFRESH might be implemented > > in future. > > That makes sense to me. Thanks for the comments. I'm fine to withdraw the patch. > > I would like to see if the 0001 patch(attaching here) will be useful > at all. It just splits up the existing ExecRefreshMatView into a few > functions to make the code readable. I'm okay to withdraw it if no one > agrees. Side note for future reference: While the feature named in the CF entry has been rejected, the remaining 0001 patch currently proposed no longer matches the title, or category. It is possible within the CF app, and helpful, to rename the entry when the scope changes. The proposed patch in the CF for incremental view maintenance [1] does some refactoring of its own in implementing the feature. I don't think it makes sense to commit a refactoring that conflicts with that, while not necessarily making life easier for that feature. Incremental view maintenance is highly desirable, so I don't want to put up unnecessary roadblocks. [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/33/2138/ -- John Naylor EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
