Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,<baros(dot)p(at)seznam(dot)cz>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL
Date: 2010-04-10 17:13:22
Message-ID: 4BC06B6202000025000306B8@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greg Smith  wrote:
 
> And work on MERGE support is itself blocked behind the fact that
> PostgreSQL doesn't have a good way to lock access to a key value
> that doesn't exist yet--what other databases call key range
> locking.
 
The bulk of the serializable implementation WIP is work to implement
just this sort of locking.  There are already a couple possible
spin-off uses on the horizon based on the ability of these locks to
survive their initiating transactions and detect conflicting writes.
Both spinoffs involve somehow flagging a transaction as being one for
which the locks should be kept until further notice, and issuing a
notification when a conflicting write occurs.  That seems consistent
with the needs of materialized views, too.
 
It probably won't be solid in time to be useful for GSoC, but if
someone's looking to map out a plan for materialized views, I thought
this information might be germane.
 
-Kevin


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Yeb HavingaDate: 2010-04-10 18:25:30
Subject: Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-04-10 16:23:27
Subject: Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group