Re: Feature: temporary materialized views

From: Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>
To: Mitar <mmitar(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feature: temporary materialized views
Date: 2019-01-11 16:51:32
Message-ID: 967dc5b6-a37b-efba-cfd2-120b59d32df6@proxel.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/28/18 8:48 AM, Mitar wrote:> One more version of the patch with
more deterministic tests.

Her is quick initial review. I will do more testing later.

It applies builds and passes the tests.

The feature seems useful and also improves consistency, if we have
temporary tables and temporary views there should logically also be
temporary materialized tables.

As for you leaving out ON COMMIT I feel that it is ok since of the
existing options only really DROP makes any sense (you cannot truncate
materialized views) and since temporary views do not have any ON COMMIT
support.

= Comments on the code

The changes to the code are small and look mostly correct.

In create_ctas_internal() why do you copy the relation even when you do
not modify it?

Is it really ok to just remove SECURITY_RESTRICTED_OPERATION from
ExecCreateTableAs()? I feel it is there for a good reason and that we
preferably want to reduce the duration of SECURITY_RESTRICTED_OPERATION
to only include when we actually execute the query.

Andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2019-01-11 17:01:36 Re: What to name the current heap after pluggable storage / what to rename?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2019-01-11 16:43:09 Re: Policy on cross-posting to multiple lists