Re: Materialized views WIP patch

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Materialized views WIP patch
Дата
Msg-id 28841.1361435477@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Materialized views WIP patch  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
Ответы Re: Materialized views WIP patch  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
> 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.

Actually, that seems like a pretty key point to me.  TRUNCATE TABLE
results in a table that is perfectly valid, you just deleted all the
rows that used to be in it.  Throwing away an MV's contents should
not result in an MV that is considered valid.  That being the case,
lumping them as being the "same" operation feels like the wrong thing,
and so we should choose a different name for the MV operation.
        regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Re: PostgreSql - access modified rows in prepare transaction command
Следующее
От: Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Unarchived WALs deleted after crash