Re: Remaining beta blockers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)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.

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.

regards, tom lane