On 28 April 2013 21:06, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
Happily so. -- 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
