Re: Lack of possibility to specify CTAS TAM

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Lack of possibility to specify CTAS TAM
Date: 2024-07-31 07:22:00
Message-ID: CAKFQuwZ2B3tpX9r3fcbf=1BNn4fz9x2wZuvxhuVer9s=vq2cCg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wednesday, July 31, 2024, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> The same storage specification feature can actually be supported for
> CTAE (like CTAS but execute) and CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW.
>
>
On a related note, the description here seems outdated.

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-client.html#GUC-DEFAULT-TABLE-ACCESS-METHOD

CMV also has this syntax already; we don’t actually have CTAE presently,
correct?

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2024-07-31 07:25:39 Re: Logical Replication of sequences
Previous Message Kirill Reshke 2024-07-31 07:20:10 Re: Lack of possibility to specify CTAS TAM