On Nov 8, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> So the question is, would a >> patch which does the first two without the third be accepted by the >> community?
+1 Definitely. > I'm about 99% sure the answer to that is 'yes'. Are you thinking of > having a background scheduler which handles the updating of > schedule-driven (instead of trigger-driven) MVs..? Not to try to > feature-creep this on you, but you might consider how a new backend > process which handles scheduled tasks could be generalized to go beyond > handling just MV updates.. :) +1 That sure would be nice. Might be some useful stuff in pgAgent to pull into this (license permitting). Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
