Re: Materialized views WIP patch

From: "Erik Rijkers" <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Noah Misch" <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marko Tiikkaja" <pgmail(at)joh(dot)to>, "Pgsql Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Materialized views WIP patch
Date: 2013-02-20 17:14:48
Message-ID: 7eaefd1edb4db28832310b8013d5477b.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On Wed, February 20, 2013 16:28, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> I suppose one should be able to expect that if one finds a view
>> in the information schema, then one should be able to use DROP
>> VIEW to remove it.  Which in this case wouldn't work.  So I don't
>> think including a materialized view under views or tables is
>> appropriate.
>
> Right.  I think adding pg_matviews covers the stated use-case
> enough to answer Erik's concern. 

Absolutely - I agree pg_matviews is much better than adding deviating information_schema stuff.

Thank you,

Erik Rijkers

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2013-02-20 17:59:59 Re: Materialized views WIP patch
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-02-20 16:58:15 Re: Materialized views WIP patch

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2013-02-20 17:59:59 Re: Materialized views WIP patch
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-02-20 16:58:15 Re: Materialized views WIP patch