Re: Should a materialized view be based on a view? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Szymon Guz
Subject Re: Should a materialized view be based on a view?
Date
Msg-id CAFjNrYtQM6hk3J0Ls2d+_xAvTpVsxKrM6jVa=3or8o4_LX7qSg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Should a materialized view be based on a view?  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
List pgsql-hackers


On 18 November 2011 23:26, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
I still have a lot of reading to do before I propose anything
concrete for development, but one thing that has already struck me
as a common theme for MVs is that a lot of people seem to like the
idea of first creating a "normal" view, and then materializing it.
That seems pretty attractive to me, too.  How do people feel about
that as a fundamental design decision: that a MV would always have
a corresponding view (under a different name or in a different
schema)?  Love it or hate it?

-Kevin



Hi Kevin,
maybe a stupid question... but why? It looks like for creating a function I should create another function earlier. For me the design should be simple. If you want to create something below my MV, thats fine for me, if I don't need to know that (just like when creating a serial column).


regards
Szymon 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: testing ProcArrayLock patches
Next
From: Thom Brown
Date:
Subject: Re: Should a materialized view be based on a view?