Re: Materialized views WIP patch

Kevin,

I haven't seen a reply to this. Were you able to give my notes below
any consideration?

On 2/15/13 12:44 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/25/13 1:00 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> New patch rebased, fixes issues raised by Thom Brown, and addresses
>> some of your points.
>
> This patch doesn't apply anymore, so I just took a superficial look. I
> think the intended functionality and the interfaces look pretty good.
> Documentation looks complete, tests are there.
>
> I have a couple of notes:
>
> * What you call WITH [NO] DATA, Oracle calls BUILD IMMEDIATE/DEFERRED.
> It might be better to use that as well then.
>
> * You use fields named relkind in the parse nodes, but they don't
> actually contain relkind values, which is confusing. I'd just name the
> field is_matview or something.
>
> * More generally, I wouldn't be so fond of combining the parse handling
> of CREATE TABLE AS and CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW. They are similar, but
> then again so are a lot of other things.
>
> * Some of the terminology is inconsistent. A materialized view is
> sometimes called valid, populated, or built, with approximately the same
> meaning. Personally, I would settle on "built", as per above, but it
> should be one term only.
>
> * I find the name of the relisvalid column a bit confusing. Especially
> because it only applies to materialized views, and there is already a
> meaning of "valid" for indexes. (Recall that indexes are also stored in
> pg_class, but they are concerned about indisvalid.) I would name it
> something like relmvbuilt.
>
>
> Btw., half of the patch seems to consist of updating places referring to
> relkind. Is something wrong with the meaning of relkind that this sort
> of thing is required? Maybe these places should be operating in terms
> of features, not accessing relkind directly.
>
>
>