| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized views |
| Date: | 2011-11-08 23:02:54 |
| Message-ID: | 24AF1833-1387-4A0C-93E8-2E2B28262182@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 8, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> So the question is, would a
>> patch which does the first two without the third be accepted by the
>> community?
+1 Definitely.
> I'm about 99% sure the answer to that is 'yes'. Are you thinking of
> having a background scheduler which handles the updating of
> schedule-driven (instead of trigger-driven) MVs..? Not to try to
> feature-creep this on you, but you might consider how a new backend
> process which handles scheduled tasks could be generalized to go beyond
> handling just MV updates.. :)
+1 That sure would be nice. Might be some useful stuff in pgAgent to pull into this (license permitting).
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-11-08 23:25:14 | Re: Materialized views |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-11-08 23:01:45 | Re: Materialized views |