Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance

Hello Takahashi-san,

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 04:27:13 +0000
"r.takahashi_2@fujitsu.com" <r.takahashi_2@fujitsu.com> wrote:

> Hi Nagata-san,
> 
> 
> Sorry for late reply.
> 
> 
> > However, even if we create triggers recursively on the parents or children, we would still
> > need more consideration. This is because we will have to convert the format of tuple of
> > modified table to the format of the table specified in the view for cases that the parent
> > and some children have different format.
> > 
> > I think supporting partitioned tables can be left for the next release.
> 
> OK. I understand.
> In the v24-patch, creating IVM on partions or partition table is prohibited.
> It is OK but it should be documented.
> 
> Perhaps, the following statement describe this.
> If so, I think the definition of "simple base table" is ambiguous for some users.
> 
> +         IMMVs must be based on simple base tables. It's not supported to
> +         create them on top of views or materialized views.

Oh, I forgot to fix the documentation. I'll fix it.

Ragards,
Yugo Nagata

-- 
Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>