Re: Feature: temporary materialized views

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, 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: 2019-03-10 06:55:08
Message-ID: cabb4131-14fc-6d88-5c64-9d4d0b221b15@pgmasters.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/8/19 3:38 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:45:04AM +0200, David Steele wrote:
>> I think a new patch is required here so I have marked this Waiting on
>> Author. cfbot is certainly not happy and anyone trying to review is going
>> to have hard time trying to determine what to review.
>
> I would recommend to mark this patch as returned with feedback as we
> already know that we need to rethink a bit harder the way relations
> are created in CTAS, not to mention that the case of EXPLAIN CTAS IF
> NOT EXISTS is not correctly handled. This requires more than three of
> work which is what remains until the end of this CF, so v12 is not a
> sane target.

OK, I will do that on March 13th if there are no arguments to the contrary.

Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2019-03-10 07:15:35 Re: Patch to document base64 encoding
Previous Message David Steele 2019-03-10 06:42:08 Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges?