| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Statement Level Deferred Triggers |
| Date: | 2009-10-24 01:49:13 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070910231849w7e4b7ackae70adec0801226f@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to hear some opinions before starting to take a stab at
> implementing $subject.
> My current use case is updating materialized views at the end of the
> transaction so that they appear consistent to the outside.
> Updating them on every row changed is far too expensive - so every change is
> logged and depending on the size of the changeset the views are recomputed
> completely or incrementally.
> Currently this is hacked up by using deferred constraint triggers - which are
> row level only... (i.e. the first run trigger deletes the whole changelog so
> that all following triggers have nearly nothing to do).
> This is neither nice from an architectural point nor from an performance
> angle.
>
> I am sure most of you can think of other use cases.
>
> Opinions?
This same use case has arisen for me in the past, with slightly
different details.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2009-10-24 03:09:35 | misleading comments in pgbench |
| Previous Message | João Eugenio Marynowski | 2009-10-24 01:36:01 | Re: table corrupted |