Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Yugo NAGATA
Subject Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Date
Msg-id 20220204014806.d29d5d923a0c51ad723cedb6@sraoss.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance  (Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>)
Responses Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 08:48:00 -0800
Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:28 AM Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 18:23:42 +0800
> > Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 04:37:10PM +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 04:31:25 +0000
> > > > "r.takahashi_2@fujitsu.com" <r.takahashi_2@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I checked the same procedure on v24 patch.
> > > > > But following error occurs instead of the original error.
> > > > >
> > > > > ERROR:  relation "ivm_t_index" already exists
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for pointing out it!
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm, an index is created when IMMV is defined, so CREAE INDEX called
> > > > after this would fail... Maybe, we should not create any index
> > automatically
> > > > if IMMV is created WITH NO DATA.
> > > >
> > > > I'll fix it after some investigation.
> > >
> > > Are you still investigating on that problem?  Also, the patchset doesn't
> > apply
> > > anymore:
> >
> > I attached the updated and rebased patch set.
> >
> > I fixed to not create a unique index when an IMMV is created WITH NO DATA.
> > Instead, the index is created by REFRESH WITH DATA only when the same one
> > is not created yet.
> >
> > Also, I fixed the documentation to describe that foreign tables and
> > partitioned
> > tables are not supported according with Takahashi-san's suggestion.
> >
> > > There isn't any answer to your following email summarizing the feature
> > yet, so
> > > I'm not sure what should be the status of this patch, as there's no ideal
> > > category for that.  For now I'll change the patch to Waiting on Author
> > on the
> > > cf app, feel free to switch it back to Needs Review if you think it's
> > more
> > > suitable, at least for the design discussion need.
> >
> > I changed the status to Needs Review.
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> Did you intend to attach updated patch ?
> 
> I don't seem to find any.

Oops, I attached. Thanks!


-- 
Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Zhihong Yu
Date:
Subject: Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: should vacuum's first heap pass be read-only?