| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Date: | 2013-03-02 14:36:28 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HPF1RNcHpsCkTgg0uXiSs8eOAcky_UA8UYsyNvTvFjHqw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> . To give another example of potential future
> update semantics, if we were to allow users manually maintaining
> materialized view contents using DML commands, one would expect
> TRUNCATE to mean "make this matview empty", not "make this matview
> unavailable".
Wouldn't that just be a regular table then though? How is that a
materialized view?
If anything someone might expect truncate to delete any rows from the
source table that appear in the view. But I think it's likely that
even if materialized views were updateable truncate wouldn't be one of
the updateable operations.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-03-02 15:06:18 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-03-02 03:52:18 | pgsql: Exclude utils/probes.h and pg_trace.h from cpluspluscheck |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2013-03-02 15:05:59 | Re: scanner/parser minimization |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2013-03-02 14:34:00 | Re: sql_drop Event Trigger |