Re: materialized view scannability in other DBs

On 2013-05-01 11:38:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> the fact that Oracle has [...] not felt compelled to add a flag
> >> of this type, suggests to me that the feature can't be considered
> >> mandatory for a minimal implementation.
> >
> > It seems to me pretty fundamental to have a way to avoid quietly
> > generating completely bogus results, whether or not one other
> > vendor has decided it doesn't matter. It's not like they are
> > completely without the concept of "freshness" (or, as they seem to
> > express it, "staleness"). If you build with DEFERRED that property
> > of the matview is set to UNUSABLE; but in their world that doesn't
> > mean it's unusable by direct reference -- only for automatic query
> > rewrites.
>
> I understand that it seems fundamental to you. What I'm trying to
> establish is that reasonable people could disagree about that. I
> think the fact that Oracle doesn't have one is a compelling argument
> for that position.

I don't think the argument that oracle doesn't do something holds all
that much weight. We have loads of features that aren't in oracle that
we consider essential.
It also obviously doesn't say the feature is essential.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services