Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> writes:
>> What do you see that I'm missing? > > TBH, if I had 20-20 foresight, we'd not be having this > discussion: either I could see that you're right and this patch > isn't going to cause us enormous pain, or I could put my finger > on exactly where and why it's going to hurt us. But I can't do > the latter today. Nonetheless, this patch terrifies me. It's > ugly, it's a serious layering violation, and it flies in the face > of very-long-standing assumptions about the semantics of heap > storage. My gut tells me that we *will* regret shipping things > this way. Nor am I impressed with the amount of functionality > we're gaining by taking such a risk. OK, I think there are more votes for removing unlogged matviews for 9.3 than for any other option, and it's time to make a call; so I'm conceding the point. Do you want me to take a shot at undoing that and straightening things out, or given the short time and your superior grasp of the layer boundaries, would you prefer to take it? -- Kevin Grittner EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
