Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
>> What do you see that I'm missing?
>
> TBH, if I had 20-20 foresight, we'd not be having this
> discussion: either I could see that you're right and this patch
> isn't going to cause us enormous pain, or I could put my finger
> on exactly where and why it's going to hurt us. But I can't do
> the latter today. Nonetheless, this patch terrifies me. It's
> ugly, it's a serious layering violation, and it flies in the face
> of very-long-standing assumptions about the semantics of heap
> storage. My gut tells me that we *will* regret shipping things
> this way. Nor am I impressed with the amount of functionality
> we're gaining by taking such a risk.
OK, I think there are more votes for removing unlogged matviews for
9.3 than for any other option, and it's time to make a call; so I'm
conceding the point. Do you want me to take a shot at undoing that
and straightening things out, or given the short time and your
superior grasp of the layer boundaries, would you prefer to take
it?
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
