Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Are you thinking of having a background scheduler which handles
> the updating of schedule-driven (instead of trigger-driven) MVs..?
I'm trying not to get to far into discussing design in advance of
reviewing previous work and any papers on the topic. That said, it
seems clear that the above is required but not sufficient.
> 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.. :)
I'll keep that in mind. :-)
-Kevin