| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <pgmail(at)joh(dot)to>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Date: | 2013-02-21 15:10:15 |
| Message-ID: | 25497.1361459415@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> That being the case, lumping them as being the "same" operation
>> feels like the wrong thing, and so we should choose a different
>> name for the MV operation.
> There is currently no truncation of MV data without rendering the
> MV unscannable. Do you still feel it needs a different command
> name?
You didn't say anything that changed my opinion: it doesn't feel like
a TRUNCATE to me. It's not changing the object to a different but
entirely valid state, which is what TRUNCATE does.
Peter claimed upthread that REFRESH is a subcommand of ALTER MATERIALIZE
VIEW and that this operation should be another one. That sounds pretty
reasonable from here.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-21 15:18:42 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-21 15:10:09 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-21 15:18:42 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-21 15:10:09 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |