Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pavelbaros <baros(dot)p(at)seznam(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL
Date: 2010-04-12 22:46:46
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus wrote:
> What would be the use case for (1) by itself?

There isn't any use case for just working on the infrastructure, just 
like there's no use case for "Syntax for partitioning" on its own.  That 
why people rarely work on that part of these problems--it's boring and 
produces no feature of value on its own.  I believe that in both cases, 
attempts to build the more complicated parts, ones that don't first 
address some of the core infrastructure first, will continue to produce 
only prototypes.

I don't want to see Materialized Views wander down the same path as 
partitioning, where lots of people produce "fun parts" patches, while 
ignoring the grunt work of things like production quality catalog 
support for the feature.  I think Pavel's proposal got that part right 
by starting with the grammar and executor setup trivia.  And Robert's 
comments about the details in that area it's easy to forget about hit 
the mark too.

Greg Smith  2ndQuadrant US  Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2010-04-13 00:10:49
Subject: Re: ECPG check variables hidden by locals v2
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2010-04-12 21:46:20
Subject: Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group