| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <pgmail(at)joh(dot)to>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Date: | 2013-02-21 22:16:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HPnJGYNDTuhQ_4wr_EZ+CkfKsX5WR+-+B+gngczbUizpg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> It doesn't. That was one of the more contentious points in the
> earlier bikeshedding phases. Some felt that throwing away the
> contents was a form of making the MV "out of date" and as such
> didn't require any special handling. Others, including myself,
> felt that "data not present" was a distinct state from "generated
> zero rows" and that attempting to scan a materialized view for
> which data had not been generated must result in an error. The
> latter property has been maintained from the beginning -- or at
> least that has been the intent.
Actually this sounds like exactly what I was saying. I withdraw my
concern entirely.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-21 22:46:40 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-21 22:11:10 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-21 22:46:40 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-21 22:11:10 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |