| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mitar <mmitar(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Feature: temporary materialized views |
| Date: | 2019-02-05 03:59:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20190205035912.GE1882@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 04:10:09PM +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> Should I submit it as a separate CF entry or is it easiest if my refactoring
> and Mi Tar's feature are reviewed together?
The refactoring patch is talking about changing the way objects are
created within a CTAS, which is quite different from what is proposed
on this thread, so in order to attract the correct audience a separate
thread with another CF entry seems more appropriate.
Now... You have on this thread all the audience which already worked
on 874fe3a. And I am just looking at this patch, evaluating the
behavior change this is introducing. Still I would recommend a
separate thread as others may want to comment on that particular
point.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-02-05 04:15:54 | Re: Inadequate executor locking of indexes |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-05 03:49:07 | Re: Log a sample of transactions |