Re: Materialized views WIP patch

Kevin,

I haven't seen a reply to this.  Were you able to give my notes below
any consideration?


On 2/15/13 12:44 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/25/13 1:00 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> New patch rebased, fixes issues raised by Thom Brown, and addresses
>> some of your points.
> 
> This patch doesn't apply anymore, so I just took a superficial look.  I
> think the intended functionality and the interfaces look pretty good.
> Documentation looks complete, tests are there.
> 
> I have a couple of notes:
> 
> * What you call WITH [NO] DATA, Oracle calls BUILD IMMEDIATE/DEFERRED.
> It might be better to use that as well then.
> 
> * You use fields named relkind in the parse nodes, but they don't
> actually contain relkind values, which is confusing.  I'd just name the
> field is_matview or something.
> 
> * More generally, I wouldn't be so fond of combining the parse handling
> of CREATE TABLE AS and CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW.  They are similar, but
> then again so are a lot of other things.
> 
> * Some of the terminology is inconsistent.  A materialized view is
> sometimes called valid, populated, or built, with approximately the same
> meaning.  Personally, I would settle on "built", as per above, but it
> should be one term only.
> 
> * I find the name of the relisvalid column a bit confusing.  Especially
> because it only applies to materialized views, and there is already a
> meaning of "valid" for indexes.  (Recall that indexes are also stored in
> pg_class, but they are concerned about indisvalid.)  I would name it
> something like relmvbuilt.
> 
> 
> Btw., half of the patch seems to consist of updating places referring to
> relkind.  Is something wrong with the meaning of relkind that this sort
> of thing is required?  Maybe these places should be operating in terms
> of features, not accessing relkind directly.
> 
> 
>