|From:||Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, takuma(dot)hoshiai(at)gmail(dot)com, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com|
|Subject:||Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> I have nothing, I'm just reading starter papers and trying to learn a
> bit more about the concepts at this stage. I was thinking of
> reviewing some of the more mechanical parts of the patch set, though,
> like perhaps the transition table lifetime management, since I have
> worked on that area before.
Do you have comments on this part?
I am asking because these patch sets are now getting closer to
committable state in my opinion, and if there's someting wrong, it
should be fixed soon so that these patches are getting into the master
I think this feature has been long awaited by users and merging the
patches should be a benefit for them.
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
|Next Message||Amit Langote||2020-09-17 02:01:32||Re: pg_restore causing deadlocks on partitioned tables|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2020-09-17 00:39:52||Re: pgindent vs dtrace on macos|