| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Inconsistency with EXPLAIN ANALYZE CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW |
| Date: | 2024-08-06 18:36:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1805425.1722969362@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> As you point out in the other email, it's not easy to make that all
> work with REFRESH ... CONCURRENTLY, but perhaps it could work with
> CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW and REFRESH (without CONCURRENTLY).
I'm not really sure I see the point of this, if it doesn't "just work"
with all variants of C.M.V. It's not like you can't easily EXPLAIN
the view's SELECT.
If REFRESH M. V. does something different than CREATE, there would
certainly be value in being able to EXPLAIN what that does --- but
that still isn't an argument for allowing EXPLAIN CREATE MATERIALIZED
VIEW.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-08-06 18:48:06 | Re: BUG #18545: \dt breaks transaction, calling error when executed in SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2024-08-06 18:24:03 | Re: Inconsistency with EXPLAIN ANALYZE CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW |