From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Implicit rule created for materialized views |
Date: | 2013-06-03 14:14:30 |
Message-ID: | 28428.1370268870@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Kevin Grittner
> <kevin(dot)grittner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> A materialized view is pretty much like a view, but with the results
>> materialized.
> Yeah, I get that, but what is confusing is that this now seems to be a
> special kind of relation where there is an ON SELECT DO INSTEAD rule
> which isn't actually executed on SELECTs from the view but at some
> arbitrary time in the future.
There is that. I wondered before if it would be worth the trouble to
invent a distinct pg_rewrite.ev_type value for these things, ie the rule
would be something like "ON REFRESH DO INSTEAD ...". On balance that
seems like it would force a lot of additional code changes for
questionable benefit, though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-06-03 14:18:57 | Re: erroneous restore into pg_catalog schema |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-06-03 13:42:48 | Re: Vacuum, Freeze and Analyze: the big picture |