Re: matview niceties: pick any two of these three

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: matview niceties: pick any two of these three
Date: 2013-05-04 01:19:40
Message-ID: 12516.1367630380@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2013-05-04 02:04:33 Re: Remaining beta blockers
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2013-05-03 20:53:08 Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums