| From: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest 2021-11 Patch Triage - Part 1 |
| Date: | 2021-11-29 12:03:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAB-JLwYxQc7YQV4eb9uVUsiESkGfCk5p+zQe+LgF2JFEyqdGfg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> > 2138: Incremental Materialized View Maintenance
>
> I've responded to it in the following thread, and described the recent
> discussions,
> current status, summary of IVM feature and design, and past discussions.
>
IVM is a wonderful feature, but some features were omitted because of
its complexity, so maybe IVM will spend more time to completely solve what
it wants to do.
I did not understand, and didn´t find on docs, if a Materialized View is a
table, why I cannot change a specific record ?
Because if I have a way to create and refresh the entire view and update a
single record it would give me all power of IVM is trying to.
regards,
Marcos
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-11-29 12:10:06 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |
| Previous Message | Marcos Pegoraro | 2021-11-29 11:34:48 | Re: pg_upgrade and publication/subscription problem |