Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL

Josh Berkus wrote:
> What would be the use case for (1) by itself?
>

There isn't any use case for just working on the infrastructure, just
like there's no use case for "Syntax for partitioning" on its own. That
why people rarely work on that part of these problems--it's boring and
produces no feature of value on its own. I believe that in both cases,
attempts to build the more complicated parts, ones that don't first
address some of the core infrastructure first, will continue to produce
only prototypes.

I don't want to see Materialized Views wander down the same path as
partitioning, where lots of people produce "fun parts" patches, while
ignoring the grunt work of things like production quality catalog
support for the feature. I think Pavel's proposal got that part right
by starting with the grammar and executor setup trivia. And Robert's
comments about the details in that area it's easy to forget about hit
the mark too.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us