| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |