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

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: Materialized views WIP patch
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HPF1RNcHpsCkTgg0uXiSs8eOAcky_UA8UYsyNvTvFjHqw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Materialized views WIP patch  (Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>)
Responses Re: Materialized views WIP patch  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at> wrote:
> . To give another example of potential future
> update semantics, if we were to allow users manually maintaining
> materialized view contents using DML commands, one would expect
> TRUNCATE to mean "make this matview empty", not "make this matview
> unavailable".

Wouldn't that just be a regular table then though? How is that a
materialized view?

If anything someone might expect truncate to delete any rows from the
source table that appear in the view. But I think it's likely that
even if materialized views were updateable truncate wouldn't be one of
the updateable operations.


-- 
greg



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: sql_drop Event Trigger
Next
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: Materialized views WIP patch