Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance

From: Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, hoshiai(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com, kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Date: 2019-11-28 08:10:52
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 11:26:40 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:

> > Note that this is the last patch in the series of IVM patches: now we
> > would like focus on blushing up the patches, rather than adding new
> > SQL support to IVM, so that the patch is merged into PostgreSQL 13
> > (hopefully). We are very welcome reviews, comments on the patch.
> >
> > BTW, the SGML docs in the patch is very poor at this point. I am going
> > to add more descriptions to the doc.
> As promised, I have created the doc (CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW manual)
> patch.

- because the triggers will be invoked.
+ because the triggers will be invoked. We call this form of materialized
+ view as "Incremantal materialized View Maintenance" (IVM).

This part seems incorrect to me. Incremental (materialized) View
Maintenance (IVM) is a way to maintain materialized views and is not a
word to refer views to be maintained.

However, it would be useful if there is a term referring views which
can be maintained using IVM. Off the top of my head, we can call this
Incrementally Maintainable Views (= IMVs), but this might cofusable with
IVM, so I'll think about that a little more....

Yugo Nagata

> Best regards,
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> English:
> Japanese:

Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2019-11-28 08:58:06 Re: format of pg_upgrade loadable_libraries warning
Previous Message Marco Slot 2019-11-28 08:01:55 Re: [Incident report]Backend process crashed when executing 2pc transaction