From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: materialized view scannability in other DBs |
Date: | 2013-05-01 15:38:36 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZs_RQd4FejHp0+rx7-i6rYUaPha02YUPF-B4VNaeUvAQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-05-01 15:47:49 | Re: materialized view scannability in other DBs |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-05-01 15:37:11 | Re: Remaining beta blockers |