| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Date: | 2012-11-16 17:08:26 |
| Message-ID: | 16871.1353085706@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> writes:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> What use would a temporary matview be?
> It would be essentially like a temporary table, with all the same
> persistence options. I'm not really sure how often it will be more
> useful than a temporary table before we have incremental maintenance
> of materialized views; once we have that, though, it seems likely
> that there could be reasonable use cases.
One of the principal attributes of a temp table is that its contents
aren't (reliably) accessible from anywhere except the owning backend.
Not sure where you're going to hide the incremental maintenance in
that scenario.
> The table inheritance has not been implemented in either direction
> for MVs. It didn't seem clear to me that there were reasonable use
> cases. Do you see any?
We don't have inheritance for views, so how would we have it for
materialized views?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2012-11-16 17:14:43 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-11-16 17:05:17 | Re: another idea for changing global configuration settings from SQL |