Re: Materialized views WIP patch
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM-w4HOL2wM9CzHKQKYb=UkTsrj3-pjpPBJje5mi2O5QFQONkQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Materialized views WIP patch (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Materialized views WIP patch
Re: Materialized views WIP patch Re: Materialized views WIP patch Re: Materialized views WIP patch Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > More generally, I would consider the invalidation of a materialized view > a DDL command, whereas truncating a table is a DML command. That's not entirely true. From the database's point of view, TRUNCATE is in many ways actually DDL. I actually don't really dislike using "TRUNCATE" for this command. I was more asking about whether this meant people were thinking of the view as a thing where you could control the data in it by hand and could have the view be "empty" rather than just "not valid". The way I was thinking about it, whatever the command is named, you might be able to tell the database to drop the storage associated with the view but that would make the view invalid until it was refreshed. It wouldn't make it appear to be empty. -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: