Re: materialized view scannability in other DBs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: materialized view scannability in other DBs
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZs_RQd4FejHp0+rx7-i6rYUaPha02YUPF-B4VNaeUvAQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: materialized view scannability in other DBs  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>)
Responses Re: materialized view scannability in other DBs  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: materialized view scannability in other DBs  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> wrote:
>> the fact that Oracle has [...] not felt compelled to add a flag
>> of this type, suggests to me that the feature can't be considered
>> mandatory for a minimal implementation.
>
> It seems to me pretty fundamental to have a way to avoid quietly
> generating completely bogus results, whether or not one other
> vendor has decided it doesn't matter.  It's not like they are
> completely without the concept of "freshness" (or, as they seem to
> express it, "staleness").  If you build with DEFERRED that property
> of the matview is set to UNUSABLE; but in their world that doesn't
> mean it's unusable by direct reference -- only for automatic query
> rewrites.

I understand that it seems fundamental to you.  What I'm trying to
establish is that reasonable people could disagree about that.  I
think the fact that Oracle doesn't have one is a compelling argument
for that position.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Remaining beta blockers
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: materialized view scannability in other DBs