| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <pgmail(at)joh(dot)to>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Date: | 2013-02-21 08:31:17 |
| Message-ID: | 28841.1361435477@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> The way I was thinking about it, whatever the command is named, you
> might be able to tell the database to drop the storage associated with
> the view but that would make the view invalid until it was refreshed.
> It wouldn't make it appear to be empty.
Actually, that seems like a pretty key point to me. TRUNCATE TABLE
results in a table that is perfectly valid, you just deleted all the
rows that used to be in it. Throwing away an MV's contents should
not result in an MV that is considered valid. 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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-02-21 08:54:06 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2013-02-21 04:14:09 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-02-21 08:39:03 | Re: Unarchived WALs deleted after crash |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-02-21 08:29:39 | Re: Re: PostgreSql - access modified rows in prepare transaction command |