On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:28:01PM +0200, Nicolas Barbier wrote: > 2013/4/3 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > > And if you're absolutely convinced that unlogged matviews mustn't work as I > > suggest, we can lose those from 9.3, too. > > +1. Having unlogged matviews without having incremental updates yet, > isn't super useful anyway.
I would have surmised the opposite: since an unlogged MV requires a full refresh at unpredictable moments, logged MVs will be preferred where a refresh is prohibitively expensive. Why might unlogged-MV applications desire incremental updates more acutely than logged-MV applications? -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
