Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 28 April 2013 16:55, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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?
I think you misread that. I'm only proposing that we remove *unlogged*
matviews, and perhaps scannability tracking for matviews.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
