On 28 April 2013 16:55, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On other patches, one committer objecting to something is seen as >> enough of a blocker to require change. That should work in every >> direction. > > The bottom line here is that we have substantial disagreement on how > unlogged matviews should be implemented, and there's no longer enough > time for coming to a resolution that will satisfy everybody. I think > that means we have to pull the feature from 9.3. If it had not yet > been committed it would certainly not be getting in now over multiple > objections.
I've not said much good about Mat Views, that is true, but that was aimed at not running with it as a headline feature without qualification. I don't take that as far as thinking the feature should be pulled completely; there is some good worth having in most things. Is this issue worth pulling the whole feature on? > Given Robert's concerns, it may be that the same should be said for > scannability tracking. I think it's definitely the case that if we > don't have unlogged matviews then the need for system-level tracking > of scannability is greatly decreased. Kevin's already said that he > plans to work on a much more flexible notion of scannability for 9.4, > and I remain concerned that something we do in haste now might not > prove to be a good upward-compatible basis for that redesign. Given that unlogged tables are somewhat volatile, unlogged matviews wouldn't be missed much AFAICS. We can add that thought as a later optimisation. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
