On 3/2/15 9:03 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> The query rewrite feature would be extremely desirable for us.
>> >Do you think that implementing the staleness check as suggested
>> >by Thomas could get us started in the query rewrite business?
> There are many aspects related to the definition, maintenance, and
> use of MVs that need work; it seems to me that many of them can be
> pursued in parallel as long as people are communicating. Staleness
> tracking is definitely one aspect that is needed. If you want to
> put forward a proposal for that, which seems to be of a scope that
> is possible in the context of GSoC, that would be great. If there
> is any other aspect of the MV "big picture" that you can think of
> that you would like to tackle and seems of appropriate scope,
> please don't feel constrained to "staleness" as the only possible
> project; it was just one suggestion of something that might be of
> about the right size.
FWIW, what I would find most useful at this point is a way to get the
equivalent of an AFTER STATEMENT trigger that provided all changed rows
in a MV as the result of a statement. That would at least allow people
do do their own MV refresh work without needing to study the methods for
identifying how the results of a statement impact what should be in the
MV. I think even something that just does that in pure SQL/plpgsql would
be a big step forward, even if we wouldn't want it directly in the codebase.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com