Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance

I'm trying to figure out how to get this feature more attention. Everyone
agrees it would be a huge help but it's a scary patch to review.

I wonder if it would be helpful to have a kind of "readers guide"
explanation of the patches to help a reviewer understand what the point of
each patch is and how the whole system works? I think Andres and Robert
have both taken that approach before with big patches and it really helped
imho.

On Fri., Apr. 22, 2022, 08:01 Yugo NAGATA, <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:29:39 +0900
> Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 11:09:16 -0400
> > Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> >
> > > This patch has bitrotted due to some other patch affecting trigger.c.
> > >
> > > Could you post a rebase?
> > >
> > > This is the last week of the CF before feature freeze so time is of
> the essence.
> >
> > I attached a rebased patch-set.
> >
> > Also, I made the folowing changes from the previous.
> >
> > 1. Fix to not use a new deptye
> >
> > In the previous patch, we introduced a new deptye 'm' into pg_depend.
> > This deptype was used for looking for IVM triggers to be removed at
> > REFRESH WITH NO DATA. However, we decided to not use it for reducing
> > unnecessary change in the core code. Currently, the trigger name and
> > dependent objclass are used at that time instead of it.
> >
> > As a result, the number of patches are reduced to nine from ten.
>
>
> > 2. Bump the version numbers in psql and pg_dump
> >
> > This feature's target is PG 16 now.
>
> Sorry, I revert this change. It was too early to bump up the
> version number.
>
> --
> Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
>