From: | Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> |
Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Commitfest 2021-11 Patch Triage - Part 1 |
Date: | 2021-12-01 07:06:56 |
Message-ID: | 20211201160656.d610182dabfef4245e0c4066@sraoss.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:03:06 -0300
Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
> >
> > > 2138: Incremental Materialized View Maintenance
> >
> > I've responded to it in the following thread, and described the recent
> > discussions,
> > current status, summary of IVM feature and design, and past discussions.
> >
>
> IVM is a wonderful feature, but some features were omitted because of
> its complexity, so maybe IVM will spend more time to completely solve what
> it wants to do.
> I did not understand, and didn´t find on docs, if a Materialized View is a
> table, why I cannot change a specific record ?
> Because if I have a way to create and refresh the entire view and update a
> single record it would give me all power of IVM is trying to.
I think the reason why we can't update a materialized view directly is because
it is basically a "view" and it should not contains any data irrelevant to its
definition and underlying tables. If we would have a feature to update a
materialized view direcly, maybe, it should behave as updatable-view as well
as normal (virtual) views, although I am not sure....
--
Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM | 2021-12-01 07:08:21 | Re: pg_replslotdata - a tool for displaying replication slot information |
Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-12-01 07:01:35 | Is there any documentation on how to correctly create extensions in HA(primary-standby) setup? |