2013/3/5 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> All that having been said, it's hard for me to imagine that anyone
> really cares about any of this until we have an incremental update
> feature, which right now we don't. Actually, I'm betting that's going
> to be significantly harder than automatic-query-rewrite, when all is
> said and done.
I agree.
E.g., things such as keeping a matview consistent relative to changes
applied to the base tables during the same transaction, might be
mightily difficult to implement in a performant way. OTOH, matviews
that can only be used for optimization if their base tables were not
changed “too recently” (e.g., by transactions that are still in
flight, including the current transaction), are probably kind of
useful in themselves as long as those base tables are not updated all
the time.
Nicolas
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q. Why is top posting bad?
