| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, 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: | 2013-02-21 21:48:07 |
| Message-ID: | 51269617.7070401@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 2/21/13 9:25 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> On 2/20/13 11:14 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>>> That's not entirely true. From the database's point of view,
>>> TRUNCATE is in many ways actually DDL.
>>
>> Whether something is DDL or DML or a read operation (query) is
>> not an implementation detail, it's a user-exposed category.
>> Since TRUNCATE is logically equivalent to DELETE, it's a DML
>> operation, as far as the user is concerned.
>
> Not really. It doesn't follow the same MVCC behavior as DML. This
> is user-visible, documented behavior.
MVCC behavior does not determine whether something is considered DDL or DML.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-21 22:11:10 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-02-21 15:42:00 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-21 22:11:10 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-02-21 19:28:11 | Re: bugfix: --echo-hidden is not supported by \sf statements |