| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Date: | 2012-11-26 15:19:21 |
| Message-ID: | 50B38879.1070307@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/26/2012 09:46 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 11/14/12 9:28 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> 17. Since the data viewed in an MV is not up-to-date with the latest
>> committed transaction,
> So, the way I understand it, in Oracle terms, this feature is a
> "snapshot", not a materialized view. Maybe that's what it should be
> called then.
>
>
If you use Jonathan Gardner's taxonomy at
<http://tech.jonathangardner.net/wiki/PostgreSQL/Materialized_Views>,
snapshots are a subclass of materialized views.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2012-11-26 15:24:56 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-11-26 15:12:10 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |