| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: record identical operator |
| Date: | 2013-09-20 15:21:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20130920152155.GB8508@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-09-20 11:05:06 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> > On 2013-09-20 10:51:46 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > I'm trying to figure out why that's a perfectly acceptable solution for
> > > users running views with GROUP BYs, but apparently it isn't sufficient
> > > for mat views?
> >
> > Err, because users wrote a GROUP BY? They haven't (neccessarily) in the
> > cases of the matviews we're talking about?
>
> Sure; my thinking was going back to what Hannu had suggested where we
> have a mechanism to see if the value was updated (using xmin or similar)
> and then update it in the mat view in that case, without actually doing
> a comparison at all.
VACUUM, HOT pruning. Have fun.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-09-20 15:23:17 | Re: record identical operator |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-09-20 15:19:14 | Re: Assertions in PL/PgSQL |