| From: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest 2021-11 Patch Triage - Part 1 |
| Date: | 2021-12-01 12:14:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAB-JLwaRn-QGdThS8QcUGukmECBoXg0Ri8e8Oapz+16mAaaXtQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> I think the reason why we can't update a materialized view directly is
> because
> it is basically a "view" and it should not contains any data irrelevant to
> its
> definition and underlying tables. If we would have a feature to update a
> materialized view direcly, maybe, it should behave as updatable-view as
> well
> as normal (virtual) views, although I am not sure....
>
Well, I didn´t find any place where is detailed why those tables are not
updatable.
And would be fine to be updated through triggers or cron jobs until IVM is
available.
CheckValidRowMarkRel just gives an exception "cannot lock rows in
materialized view ...", but why ?
What are the differences between Materialized Views and tables ?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com | 2021-12-01 12:25:35 | RE: Optionally automatically disable logical replication subscriptions on error |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-12-01 11:58:00 | Re: GUC flags |