2013/3/5 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > All that having been said, it's hard for me to imagine that anyone > really cares about any of this until we have an incremental update > feature, which right now we don't. Actually, I'm betting that's going > to be significantly harder than automatic-query-rewrite, when all is > said and done.
I agree. E.g., things such as keeping a matview consistent relative to changes applied to the base tables during the same transaction, might be mightily difficult to implement in a performant way. OTOH, matviews that can only be used for optimization if their base tables were not changed “too recently” (e.g., by transactions that are still in flight, including the current transaction), are probably kind of useful in themselves as long as those base tables are not updated all the time. Nicolas -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. Q. Why is top posting bad? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
