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

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HN6U5CM+PBsTg97QG0kk2PEW_tvh09HWnZnjW1Tfk7Q7w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance  (Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance  (Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
I'm trying to figure out how to get this feature more attention. Everyone agrees it would be a huge help but it's a scary patch to review.

I wonder if it would be helpful to have a kind of "readers guide" explanation of the patches to help a reviewer understand what the point of each patch is and how the whole system works? I think Andres and Robert have both taken that approach before with big patches and it really helped imho.



On Fri., Apr. 22, 2022, 08:01 Yugo NAGATA, <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:29:39 +0900
Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 11:09:16 -0400
> Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > This patch has bitrotted due to some other patch affecting trigger.c.
> >
> > Could you post a rebase?
> >
> > This is the last week of the CF before feature freeze so time is of the essence.
>
> I attached a rebased patch-set.
>
> Also, I made the folowing changes from the previous.
>
> 1. Fix to not use a new deptye
>
> In the previous patch, we introduced a new deptye 'm' into pg_depend.
> This deptype was used for looking for IVM triggers to be removed at
> REFRESH WITH NO DATA. However, we decided to not use it for reducing
> unnecessary change in the core code. Currently, the trigger name and
> dependent objclass are used at that time instead of it.
>
> As a result, the number of patches are reduced to nine from ten.


> 2. Bump the version numbers in psql and pg_dump
>
> This feature's target is PG 16 now.

Sorry, I revert this change. It was too early to bump up the
version number.

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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: [Proposal] vacuumdb --schema only
Next
From: Jian He
Date:
Subject: multirange of arrays not working on postgresql 14