| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: record identical operator |
| Date: | 2013-09-20 14:55:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20130920145506.GB6239@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-09-20 10:51:46 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out why that's a perfectly acceptable solution for
> users running views with GROUP BYs, but apparently it isn't sufficient
> for mat views?
Err, because users wrote a GROUP BY? They haven't (neccessarily) in the
cases of the matviews we're talking about?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-09-20 15:01:20 | Re: record identical operator |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-09-20 14:51:46 | Re: record identical operator |