2010/6/29 David Christensen <da...@endpoint.com>: > Do we see supporting the creation of a materialized view from a regular view, > as in ALTER VIEW regular_view SET MATERIALIZED or some such?
I'm not sure. I think we should focus our efforts on (1) getting it to work at all and then (2) improving the performance of the refresh operation, which will doubtless be pessimal in the initial implementation. Those are big enough problems that I'm not inclined to spend much thought on bells and whistles at this point. > Since we're treating this as a distinct object type, instead of repeatedly > typing "MATERIALIZED VIEW", is there a possibility of introducing a keyword > alias "MATVIEW" without complicating the grammar/code all that much, or is > that frowned upon? Paintbrushes, anyone? -1 from me, but IJWH. By the way, does the SQL standard say anything about materialized views? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
