| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remaining beta blockers |
| Date: | 2013-05-06 15:17:19 |
| Message-ID: | 15607.1367853439@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
>> That column name and the wording of some comments are the main
>> things
> Patch for that attached. I left the part where you got rid of the
> SQL function to allow users to test whether a matview is currently
> scannable, and I did not add an AMV option to change the populated
> flag, since those haven't had any real discussion yet.
Per my other mail, I think adding an AMV option at this time is
inadvisable. I could go either way on removing or keeping the
is_scannable function --- anybody else have an opinion on that point?
Which of us is going to commit this? We're running low on time ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2013-05-06 15:17:42 | Re: event trigger API documentation? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-05-06 15:02:19 | Re: pg_dump --snapshot |