| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW locklevel |
| Date: | 2013-03-07 17:55:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1362678939.69291.YahooMailNeo@web162904.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> if I understand things correctly REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW locks
> the materialized view with an AcessExclusiveLock even if the view
> already contains data.
Yeah. At the time I had to make a decision on that, REINDEX
CONCURRENTLY did not seem reliable with a weaker lock, and REFRESH
MATERIALIZED VIEW has to rebuild indexes (among other things). If
we have all the issues sorted out with REINDEX CONCURRENTLY then
the same techniques will probably apply to RMV without too much
difficulty. It's a bit late to think about that for 9.3, though.
> I am pretty sure that will - understandably - confuse users, so I
> vote for at least including a note about that in the docs.
Will see about working that in.
-Kevin
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-03-07 18:23:55 | Re: REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW locklevel |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2013-03-07 17:36:29 | Re: REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW locklevel |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-03-07 18:23:55 | Re: REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW locklevel |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-03-07 17:42:48 | Re: odd behavior in materialized view |