| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <pgmail(at)joh(dot)to>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Date: | 2013-02-20 18:57:36 |
| Message-ID: | 51251CA0.9070203@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 2/19/13 5:47 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> When I went to do this, I hit a shift/reduce conflict, because with
> TABLE being optional it couldn't tell whether:
>
> TRUNCATE MATERIALIZED VIEW x, y, z;
>
> ... was looking for five relations or three. That goes away with
> MATERIALIZED escalated to TYPE_FUNC_NAME_KEYWORD. Is that OK?
Is TRUNCATE even the right command here? For regular tables TRUNCATE is
a fast DELETE, which logically empties the table. For materialized
views, there is no deleting, so this command (I suppose?) just
invalidates the materalized view. That's not the same thing.
Are there TRUNCATE triggers on materialized views?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-20 19:30:05 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-02-20 18:33:20 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-02-20 19:16:14 | Re: [PATCH] Add PQconninfoParseParams and PQconninfodefaultsMerge to libpq |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-02-20 18:33:20 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |