From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Mitar <mmitar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Feature: temporary materialized views |
Date: | 2019-03-14 14:56:26 |
Message-ID: | 67d5eb0c-ac24-cc40-be01-0cc2afd1dee1@proxel.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/14/19 9:13 AM, Mitar wrote:> I just want to make sure if I
understand correctly. But my initial
> proposal/patch is currently waiting first for all patches for the
> refactoring to happen, which are done by amazing Andreas? This sounds
> good to me and I see a lot of progress/work has been done and I am OK
> with waiting. Please ping me explicitly if there will be anything I am
> expected to do at any point in time.
>
> And just to make sure, these current patches are doing just
> refactoring but are not also introducing temporary materialized views
> yet? Or is that also done in patches made by Andreas?
Yeah, your patch is sadly stuck behind the refactoring, and the
refactoring proved to be harder to do than I initially thought. The
different code paths for executing CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW are so
different that it is hard to find a good common interface.
So there is unfortunately little you can do here other than wait for me
or someone else to do the refactoring as I cannot see your patch getting
accepted without keeping the existing restrictions on side effects for
CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2019-03-14 15:06:34 | Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion at relnode.c |
Previous Message | tushar | 2019-03-14 14:53:26 | [sqlsmith] Failed assertion at relnode.c |