| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.3 Beta 1 Coming Soon! |
| Date: | 2013-04-18 08:09:10 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+Lvkrnj2OamML=Si4Zu3vrfFz5ammuQJg3RBfhrbGG1A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 17 April 2013 17:51, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> Regrading MatViews, let me explain why the Refresh locking isn't the
> albatross which some people think it is. Currently, my clients, and
> several OSS projects, have many applications which currently use tables
> as materialized views. The common way to handle these is "BEGIN;
> TRUNCATE matview; INSERT INTO matview SELECT ...; COMMIT;". This
> produces the *exact same* locking pattern as the current REFRESH. While
> more lock-sensitive patterns are possible, that doesn't mean people are,
> in the mainstream, using them.
I agree that the above code has exactly the same locking pattern as a refresh.
Only trouble is that isn't the best way of doing it, nor in my
experience the common way of doing it.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-04-18 08:11:40 | Re: 9.3 Beta 1 Coming Soon! |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-04-18 00:04:46 | Re: Heroku early upgrade is raising serious questions |