Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> wrote:
>> That column name and the wording of some comments are the main
>> things
> Patch for that attached.� I left the part where you got rid of the
> SQL function to allow users to test whether a matview is currently
> scannable, and I did not add an AMV option to change the populated
> flag, since those haven't had any real discussion yet.
Per my other mail, I think adding an AMV option at this time is
inadvisable. I could go either way on removing or keeping the
is_scannable function --- anybody else have an opinion on that point?
Which of us is going to commit this? We're running low on time ...
regards, tom lane