Re: Feature: triggers on materialized views

On 3/15/19 8:15 PM, Mitar wrote:
>
> The only pending/unaddressed comment is about the philosophical
> question of what it means to be a trigger. There it seems we simply
> disagree with the reviewer and I do not know how to address that. I
> just see this as a very pragmatical feature which provides features
> you would have if you would not use PostgreSQL abstraction. If you can
> use features then, why not also with the abstraction?

This seems to be a pretty big deal to me. When the reviewer is also a
committer I think you need to give serious thought to their objections.

> So in my view this looks more like a lack of review feedback on the
> latest version of the patch. I really do not know how to ask for more
> feedback or to move the philosophical discussion further. I thought
> that commit fest is in fact exactly a place to motivate and collect
> such feedback instead of waiting for it in the limbo.

Yes, but sometimes these things take time.

>> What you need to be doing for PG13 is very specifically addressing
>> committer concerns and gathering a consensus that the behavior of this
>> patch is the way to go.
>
> To my understanding the current patch addresses all concerns made by
> reviewers on older versions of the patch, or explains why proposals
> cannot work out, modulo the question of "does this change what trigger
> is".

Still a pretty important question...

> Thank you everyone who is involved in this process for your time, I do
> appreciate. I am just trying to explain that I am a bit at loss on
> concrete next steps I could take here.

This is the last commitfest, so committers and reviewers are focused on
what is most likely to make it into PG12. Your patch does not seem to
be attracting the attention it needs to make it into this release.

Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net