Re: Materialized views WIP patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>
Cc: "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Materialized views WIP patch
Date: 2012-11-16 17:08:26
Message-ID: 16871.1353085706@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> writes:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> What use would a temporary matview be?

> It would be essentially like a temporary table, with all the same
> persistence options. I'm not really sure how often it will be more
> useful than a temporary table before we have incremental maintenance
> of materialized views; once we have that, though, it seems likely
> that there could be reasonable use cases.

One of the principal attributes of a temp table is that its contents
aren't (reliably) accessible from anywhere except the owning backend.
Not sure where you're going to hide the incremental maintenance in
that scenario.

> The table inheritance has not been implemented in either direction
> for MVs. It didn't seem clear to me that there were reasonable use
> cases. Do you see any?

We don't have inheritance for views, so how would we have it for
materialized views?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thom Brown 2012-11-16 17:14:43 Re: Materialized views WIP patch
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-11-16 17:05:17 Re: another idea for changing global configuration settings from SQL