Re: Materialized views WIP patch

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <pgmail(at)joh(dot)to>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Materialized views WIP patch
Date: 2013-02-21 04:14:09
Message-ID: CAM-w4HOL2wM9CzHKQKYb=UkTsrj3-pjpPBJje5mi2O5QFQONkQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> More generally, I would consider the invalidation of a materialized view
> a DDL command, whereas truncating a table is a DML command.

That's not entirely true. From the database's point of view, TRUNCATE
is in many ways actually DDL.

I actually don't really dislike using "TRUNCATE" for this command. I
was more asking about whether this meant people were thinking of the
view as a thing where you could control the data in it by hand and
could have the view be "empty" rather than just "not valid".

The way I was thinking about it, whatever the command is named, you
might be able to tell the database to drop the storage associated with
the view but that would make the view invalid until it was refreshed.
It wouldn't make it appear to be empty.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-02-21 08:31:17 Re: Materialized views WIP patch
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2013-02-21 00:45:01 Re: Materialized views WIP patch

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2013-02-21 08:29:39 Re: Re: PostgreSql - access modified rows in prepare transaction command
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2013-02-21 03:54:40 Re: Re: PostgreSql - access modified rows in prepare transaction command