On 28 April 2013 16:55, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
>> On other patches, one committer objecting to something is seen as
>> enough of a blocker to require change. That should work in every
>> direction.
>
> The bottom line here is that we have substantial disagreement on how
> unlogged matviews should be implemented, and there's no longer enough
> time for coming to a resolution that will satisfy everybody. I think
> that means we have to pull the feature from 9.3. If it had not yet
> been committed it would certainly not be getting in now over multiple
> objections.
I've not said much good about Mat Views, that is true, but that was
aimed at not running with it as a headline feature without
qualification. I don't take that as far as thinking the feature should
be pulled completely; there is some good worth having in most things.
Is this issue worth pulling the whole feature on?
> Given Robert's concerns, it may be that the same should be said for
> scannability tracking. I think it's definitely the case that if we
> don't have unlogged matviews then the need for system-level tracking
> of scannability is greatly decreased. Kevin's already said that he
> plans to work on a much more flexible notion of scannability for 9.4,
> and I remain concerned that something we do in haste now might not
> prove to be a good upward-compatible basis for that redesign.
Given that unlogged tables are somewhat volatile, unlogged matviews
wouldn't be missed much AFAICS. We can add that thought as a later
optimisation.
--Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services