Re: 9.3 Beta 1 Coming Soon!
| От | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: 9.3 Beta 1 Coming Soon! |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+U5nM+Lvkrnj2OamML=Si4Zu3vrfFz5ammuQJg3RBfhrbGG1A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: 9.3 Beta 1 Coming Soon! (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On 17 April 2013 17:51, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Regrading MatViews, let me explain why the Refresh locking isn't the > albatross which some people think it is. Currently, my clients, and > several OSS projects, have many applications which currently use tables > as materialized views. The common way to handle these is "BEGIN; > TRUNCATE matview; INSERT INTO matview SELECT ...; COMMIT;". This > produces the *exact same* locking pattern as the current REFRESH. While > more lock-sensitive patterns are possible, that doesn't mean people are, > in the mainstream, using them. I agree that the above code has exactly the same locking pattern as a refresh. Only trouble is that isn't the best way of doing it, nor in my experience the common way of doing it. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: