Re: materialized view scannability in other DBs

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
>> the fact that Oracle has [...] not felt compelled to add a flag
>> of this type, suggests to me that the feature can't be considered
>> mandatory for a minimal implementation.
>
> It seems to me pretty fundamental to have a way to avoid quietly
> generating completely bogus results, whether or not one other
> vendor has decided it doesn't matter. It's not like they are
> completely without the concept of "freshness" (or, as they seem to
> express it, "staleness"). If you build with DEFERRED that property
> of the matview is set to UNUSABLE; but in their world that doesn't
> mean it's unusable by direct reference -- only for automatic query
> rewrites.

I understand that it seems fundamental to you. What I'm trying to
establish is that reasonable people could disagree about that. I
think the fact that Oracle doesn't have one is a compelling argument
for that position.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company