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!
Hi,
For CreateIndexOnIMMV():
+ ereport(NOTICE,
+ (errmsg("could not create an index on materialized view \"%s\" automatically",
...
+ return;
+ }
Should the return type be changed to bool so that the caller knows whether the index creation succeeds ?
If index creation is unsuccessful, should the call to CreateIvmTriggersOnBaseTables() be skipped ?
