RE: Mat Views and Conflicts - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Zahir Lalani
Subject RE: Mat Views and Conflicts
Date
Msg-id AS8P251MB01208F555627AE1C46CE0C66A7502@AS8P251MB0120.EURP251.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Mat Views and Conflicts  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Mat Views and Conflicts  (Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>)
List pgsql-general
-From: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> 
-Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:20 PM
-To: Zahir Lalani <ZahirLalani@oliver.agency>
-Cc: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>; pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
-Subject: Re: Mat Views and Conflicts
-
-
-On Tuesday, February 20, 2024, Zahir Lalani <mailto:ZahirLalani@oliver.agency> wrote: 
-
-This suggests that not all the MV data is cached and it still queries the source tables in some way?
-
-No.  That isn’t how MV work.  If you include an MV relation in your query from clause there is no reference or
knowledgeas to the underlying query that built the MV physical relation.
 
-
-David J.

Thx David

Cool so that is what my understanding was. But that comes back to my main question - the MV is cached data from the
lasttime refresh was run. If I query the MV and the underlying realtime data changes (i.e. from the source tables not
theMV)  - should I be getting a replication conflict issue? I would have thought not as the MV data should not have
beenimpacted
 

Z

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Mat Views and Conflicts
Next
From: Greg Sabino Mullane
Date:
Subject: Re: User pooler error: unsupported startup parameter: extra_float_digits