Re: [HACKERS] mat views stats - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] mat views stats
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobiJZSmYS7ieFTHaCS8kDWwfAVwE-BaLGcjGbdGax75Xg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] mat views stats  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] mat views stats  (Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
> Certainly easier, but I don't think it'd be better. Matviews really aren't
> the same thing as tables. Off-hand (without reviewing the patch), update and
> delete counts certainly wouldn't make any sense. "Insert" counts might, in
> as much as it's how many rows have been added by refreshes. You'd want a
> refresh count too.

Regular REFRESH truncates the view and repopulates it, but REFRESH
CONCURRENTLY does inserts, updates, and deletes as needed to adjust
the contents.  So I think all the same counters that make sense for
regular tables are also sensible here.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [patch] reorder tablespaces in basebackup tar streamfor backup_label