Re: Materialized views WIP patch
От | Kevin Grittner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1376591834.59985.YahooMailNeo@web162906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Materialized views WIP patch (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Materialized views WIP patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Apologies, but this sub-thread got lost when I changed email accounts. I found it in a final review to make sure nothing had fallen through the cracks. Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:09:28PM -0500, Noah Misch wrote: >> There's no documented support for table constraints on MVs, but >> UNIQUE constraints are permitted: >> >> [local] test=# alter materialized view mymv add unique (c); >> ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW Fix pushed. > Also, could you explain the use of RelationCacheInvalidateEntry() > in ExecRefreshMatView()? CacheInvalidateRelcacheByRelid() > followed by CommandCounterIncrement() is the typical pattern; > this is novel. I suspect, though, neither is necessary now that > the relcache does not maintain populated status based on a fork > size reading. Yeah, that was part of the attempt to support unlogged materialized views while also not returning bogus results if the view had not been populated, using heap file size. I agree that this line can just come out. If there are no objections real soon now, I will remove it in master and the 9.3 branch before the release candidate. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: