Re: pg_dump versus materialized views

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus materialized views
Date: 2013-05-06 00:01:35
Message-ID: 20130506000135.GX4361@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> I've thought for some time that, given that it can't reproduce the MV
> states exactly, pg_dump shouldn't even try. I think it would be more
> useful to have two operating modes selectable by command line switch:
> refresh all matviews, or refresh none of them.

I'm not convinced that adding a new switch for it is actually a great
idea, and it's pretty late to be doing so anyway, imv.. I'd vote for
just "don't refresh mat views" in pg_dump for this go-round.

> Or maybe there's some other better way to approach it.

My preference would be for pg_dump to actually reproduce what the
current state of the database is, possibly by dumping the exact contents
of the matview as if it was a regular relation, but any such discussion
should be post-9.3.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2013-05-06 01:51:50 Re: In progress INSERT wrecks plans on table
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2013-05-05 22:59:28 Re: 9.3 Beta1 status report