From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mitar <mmitar(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Feature: temporary materialized views |
Date: | 2019-02-05 11:36:58 |
Message-ID: | 20190205113658.GG1882@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Andreas,
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 12:59:12PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Now... You have on this thread all the audience which already worked
> on 874fe3a. And I am just looking at this patch, evaluating the
> behavior change this is introducing. Still I would recommend a
> separate thread as others may want to comment on that particular
> point.
So I have read through your patch, and there are a couple of things
which I think we could simplify more. Here are my notes:
1) We could remove the into clause from DR_intorel, which is used for
two things:
- Determine the relkind of the relation created. However the relation
gets created before entering in the executor, and we already know its
OID, so we also know its relkind.
- skipData is visibly always false.
We may want to keep skipData to have an assertion at the beginning of
inforel_startup for sanity purposes though.
2) DefineIntoRelForDestReceiver is just a wrapper for
create_ctas_nodata, so we had better just merge both of them and
expose directly the routine creating the relation definition, so the
new interface is a bit awkward.
3) The part about the regression diff is well... Expected... We may
want a comment about that. We could consider as well adding a
regression test inspired from REINDEX SCHEMA to show that the CTAS is
created before the data is actually filled in.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-05 11:42:59 | Re: What happens if checkpoint haven't completed until the next checkpoint interval or max_wal_size? |
Previous Message | Michael Banck | 2019-02-05 11:29:53 | Re: Online verification of checksums |