| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2013-05-05 20:33:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1367786010.77689.YahooMailNeo@web162901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Things like how fresh the materialized view is certainly should
> be accessible via SQL and transactional.
Keep in mind that something like "whether the materialized view is
fresh enough to be scanned by this connection" may eventually
depend on session GUCs and the passage of time in the absence of
any database modifications. That's why I believe that checking for
scannability should be done through a function, not a check of a
system table.
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-05-05 20:41:34 | Re: Remaining beta blockers |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-05-05 18:22:32 | Re: pg_dump versus materialized views |