On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Haribabu Kommi > <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the review. > > I committed this patch with some cosmetic changes. I think the fact > that several people have asked for this indicates that, even without > making some of the more complicated cases work, this has some value. > I am not convinced it is safe in any case other than when the DML > command is both creating and populating the table, so I removed > REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW support from the patch and worked over the > documentation and comments to a degree. > > The problem with a case like REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW is that there's > nothing to prevent something that gets run in the course of the query > from trying to access the view (and the heavyweight lock won't prevent > that, due to group locking). That's probably a stupid thing to do, > but it can't be allowed to break the world. The other cases are safe > from that particular problem because the table doesn't exist yet. > Thanks for committing the patch. I understand the problem of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW case. Regards, Hari Babu Fujitsu Australia
