On 28 April 2013 21:06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
>> On 28 April 2013 16:55, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> I think you misread that. I'm only proposing that we remove *unlogged*
> matviews, and perhaps scannability tracking for matviews.
Happily so.
--Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services