Re: REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW locklevel

2013/3/8 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>:

> On 2013-03-07 15:21:35 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> This limitation is in no way crippling for this feature, or even a major
>> detraction.  I still intend to promote the heck out of this feature.
>
> Thats scaring me. Because the current state of the feature isn't
> something that people expect under the term "materialized views" and I
> am pretty damn sure people will then remember postgres as trying to
> provide a tick-box item without it being really usable in the real
> world.
> And thats not something I want postgres to be known for.

+1. It seems wise to wait for the feature to ripen some more. That
way, the impact of any promotion will be stronger; Most people
understand “materialized views” to mean something more that what is
currently there.

Of course, a drawback of waiting would be that you might lose the
momentum of the expression “materialized views.” OTOH, any questions
along the lines of “I thought PG supported materialized views since
9.3? Why are they making such a fuss about it now (i.e., > 9.3)?”
would lead to people discussing even more, which might enhance the
effect of the promotion.

Nicolas

--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q. Why is top posting bad?