On 03/08/2013 10:09 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Andres,
Further, we get pretty much one and only one chance to promote a new
major feature, which is when that feature is first introduced.
Improving the feature in the next version of Postgre
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Andres,
>
> Crossing this over to pgsql-advocacy, because this is really an Advocacy
> discussion.
>
>> The point is that
>> a) refreshing is the only way to update materialized views. There's no
>>incremental support.
>> b) refreshing will
Andres,
Crossing this over to pgsql-advocacy, because this is really an Advocacy
discussion.
> The point is that
> a) refreshing is the only way to update materialized views. There's no
>incremental support.
> b) refreshing will take a long time (otherwise you wouldn't have
>create a mate
2013/3/8 Andres Freund :
> On 2013-03-07 15:21:35 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> This limitation is in no way crippling for this feature, or even a major
>> detraction. I still intend to promote the heck out of this feature.
>
> Thats scaring me. Because the current state of the feature isn't
> s
On 2013-03-07 15:54:32 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> >> Postgres is currently full of fairly innocent-looking commands which
> >> take an unexpected ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock. For example, DROP CONSTRAINT
> >> takes an accessexclusive lock, but it hasn't stopped people from using
> >> constraints, an
>> Postgres is currently full of fairly innocent-looking commands which
>> take an unexpected ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock. For example, DROP CONSTRAINT
>> takes an accessexclusive lock, but it hasn't stopped people from using
>> constraints, and isn't particularly high up on our todo list to fix
>> it.
Hi,
On 2013-03-07 15:21:35 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > This fact imo reduces the usability of the matviews features as it
> > stands atm considerably. I think we should be very careful not to
> > advocate its existance much and document very clearly that its work in
> > progress.
> > Working inc
Andres,
> if I understand things correctly REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW locks the
> materialized view with an AcessExclusiveLock even if the view already
> contains data.
> I am pretty sure that will - understandably - confuse users, so I vote
> for at least including a note about that in the docs.
On 2013-03-07 11:50:11 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> "anara...@anarazel.de" wrote:
>
> > In the ride home I realized that unless - not that unlikely - you
> > thought about something I didtn't REFRESH will behave similar to
> > TRUNCATE for repeatable read+ transactions that only access it
> >
"anara...@anarazel.de" wrote:
> In the ride home I realized that unless - not that unlikely - you
> thought about something I didtn't REFRESH will behave similar to
> TRUNCATE for repeatable read+ transactions that only access it
> after REFRESH finished. That is, they will appear empty.
In an
Kevin Grittner schrieb:
>Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> if I understand things correctly REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW locks
>> the materialized view with an AcessExclusiveLock even if the view
>> already contains data.
>
>Yeah. At the time I had to make a decision on that, REINDEX
>CONCURRENTLY did n
On 2013-03-07 09:55:39 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > if I understand things correctly REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW locks
> > the materialized view with an AcessExclusiveLock even if the view
> > already contains data.
>
> Yeah. At the time I had to make a decision on th
Andres Freund wrote:
> if I understand things correctly REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW locks
> the materialized view with an AcessExclusiveLock even if the view
> already contains data.
Yeah. At the time I had to make a decision on that, REINDEX
CONCURRENTLY did not seem reliable with a weaker lock,
Hi,
if I understand things correctly REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW locks the
materialized view with an AcessExclusiveLock even if the view already
contains data.
I am pretty sure that will - understandably - confuse users, so I vote
for at least including a note about that in the docs.
This fact imo
14 matches
Mail list logo
