Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance

Hello Takahashi-san,

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 04:27:13 +0000
"r(dot)takahashi_2(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <r(dot)takahashi_2(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi Nagata-san,
>
>
> Sorry for late reply.
>
>
> > However, even if we create triggers recursively on the parents or children, we would still
> > need more consideration. This is because we will have to convert the format of tuple of
> > modified table to the format of the table specified in the view for cases that the parent
> > and some children have different format.
> >
> > I think supporting partitioned tables can be left for the next release.
>
> OK. I understand.
> In the v24-patch, creating IVM on partions or partition table is prohibited.
> It is OK but it should be documented.
>
> Perhaps, the following statement describe this.
> If so, I think the definition of "simple base table" is ambiguous for some users.
>
> + IMMVs must be based on simple base tables. It's not supported to
> + create them on top of views or materialized views.

Oh, I forgot to fix the documentation. I'll fix it.

Ragards,
Yugo Nagata

--
Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>