Re: Why no CREATE TEMP MATERIALIZED VIEW ?

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org >> PG-General Mailing List" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why no CREATE TEMP MATERIALIZED VIEW ?
Date: 2019-07-16 16:56:54
Message-ID: CAKFQuwbf685z2Do41OzMaW5B4X9+t-h6hCKRGFC=srB3TVqbgw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 9:29 AM Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, since there's CREATE TEMP VIEW, any particular reason
> there's no CREATE TEMP MATERIALIZED VIEW?
>
> Seems like it could be similar to a temp table.
>

Probably a lack (absence) of use cases resulted in people deciding (or
defaulting) to not spend any effort in that area. Incremental maintenance
and refresh seem considerably less useful when only the current session can
see the table. Temp views and temp tables seem to provide sufficient
options in the session lifetime space.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron 2019-07-16 17:57:55 Re: Why no CREATE TEMP MATERIALIZED VIEW ?
Previous Message Ivan Voras 2019-07-16 16:29:01 Why no CREATE TEMP MATERIALIZED VIEW ?