On Tue, 2026-10-13 at 11:36 +0000, Färber, Franz-Josef (StMUK) wrote: > > > [rant about PostgreSQL security restrictions] > > No no no, not about security restrictions. The rant is about lacking > orthogonality. > About often NOT being able to combine language features. Doesn't anybody > share that > view? We COULD do better, I think.
Well, you want to use a materialized view for something that it cannot be used for, for security reasons. We tried to explain that in this thread. > > If the security restrictions of materialized views prevent you from using > > them, > > why don't you use a normal table instead, TRUNCATE it and INSERT into it? > > The MAT VIEW is used from "outside". From other views, or from a client that > connects to the database. > > * I can replace it with a view; I didn't do that for performance reasons. > * I can replace it with a persistent table, a stored procedure, and custom > caching > logic. That'll work. But this is what a MAT VIEW is for, I thought. You could write a procedure that truncates the table and populates it with a query, using a temporary table if you want. Calling that procedure is just as convenient as calling REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW. Are you searching for a usable solution for a problem? Then that should do. Yours, Laurenz Albe
