| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "stark(at)mit(dot)edu" <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "ants(at)cybertec(dot)at" <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com" <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, "robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Date: | 2013-03-07 17:14:57 |
| Message-ID: | 72AFFA40-91AF-496A-91C1-64594956082D@justatheory.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Mar 7, 2013, at 7:55 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
>> If the answer to both those questions is “yes,” I think the term
>> should remain “table,” with a few mentions that the term includes
>> materialized views (and excludes foreign tables).
>
> And if the answers are "not exactly" and "yes"?
I still tend to think that the term should remain “table,” with brief mentions at the top of pages when the term should be assumed to represent tables and matviews, and otherwise required disambiguations.
Trying to make the least possible work for you here. :-)
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-03-07 17:41:31 | pgsql: Fix typo in docs for ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-07 16:51:59 | pgsql: Fix infinite-loop risk in fixempties() stage of regex compilatio |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2013-03-07 17:28:51 | Re: odd behavior in materialized view |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-03-07 16:52:39 | Re: odd behavior in materialized view |