Re: Materialized views WIP patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Materialized views WIP patch
Date
Msg-id 28841.1361435477@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Materialized views WIP patch  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: Materialized views WIP patch
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: PostgreSql - access modified rows in prepare transaction command
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Unarchived WALs deleted after crash