Re: EXPLAIN/EXPLAIN ANALYZE REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bharath Rupireddy
Subject Re: EXPLAIN/EXPLAIN ANALYZE REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW
Date
Msg-id CALj2ACURBP=ENmgskuxDS61V5x8zotwJ55ak2VmOWLJZGedOPA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: EXPLAIN/EXPLAIN ANALYZE REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW  (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 5:19 PM John Naylor
<john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Side note for future reference: While the feature named in the CF entry has been rejected, the remaining 0001 patch
currentlyproposed no longer matches the title, or category. It is possible within the CF app, and helpful, to rename
theentry when the scope changes. 
>
> The proposed patch in the CF for incremental view maintenance [1] does some refactoring of its own in implementing
thefeature. I don't think it makes sense to commit a refactoring that conflicts with that, while not necessarily making
lifeeasier for that feature. Incremental view maintenance is highly desirable, so I don't want to put up unnecessary
roadblocks.

Thanks. I'm okay to close the CF
entry(https://commitfest.postgresql.org/33/2928/) and stop this
thread.

Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal - psql - use pager for \watch command
Next
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: bugfix: when the blocksize is 32k, the function page_header of pageinspect returns negative numbers.