Re: [HACKERS] Snapshot Materialized Views - GSoC
On fre, 2010-05-21 at 16:31 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: I guess the justification is that with the same argument you could argue that a view should have relkind 'r', since it's just an empty table with a rewrite rule attached. It used to be that way, but now a view doesn't have an empty table attached to it, but no table at all. Hence the different relkind. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Snapshot Materialized Views - GSoC
2010/5/20 Pavel baro...@seznam.cz: For this summer I have plan to make patch inplementing snapshot materialized views (MV). I believe it will not be end of effort to implement more of MV. But I / we need discuss MV syntax and exact behaviour so I have some questions about that for all of you: a) relkind for materialized view in pg_class? - I'm voting for char 'm' quite obvious why, but not sure about alias: 1 - RELKIND_MVIEW 2 - RELKIND_MATVIEW or any other ideas? I think the prior question is whether we need to create a new relkind at all. I'm prepared to believe that the answer is yes, but I'd like to see a clear justification of why we can't use either 'v' or 'r'. It seems to me that a materialized view is a lot like a regular old table with a special rewrite rule attached to it somewhere. b) create MV syntax? - CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname AS ..., I think it is quite obvious to do so, but I had to ask I think that's OK. c) refresh command syntax? 1 - ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname REFRESH or 2 - REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname 1. d) what to do when someone use INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE against MV? 1 - raise error? - I prefer this option 2 - let commands change MV? (no chance to let changes propagate to source tables, not for this summer :) if pg lets user to DML against MV, I expect that triggers should work too 1. e) what to do when someone drop table or column? - it behave like it was a classic view. Fire error and hint - CASCADE option will remove MV Agree. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Snapshot Materialized Views - GSoC
Pavel, b) create MV syntax? - CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname AS ..., I think it is quite obvious to do so, but I had to ask please do not fortget the: create or replace MATERIALIZED VIEW option. And also the DROP if exists for the drop-command Best wishes Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 no fx, no carrier pigeon - Using PostgreSQL is mostly about sleeping well at night.
Re: [HACKERS] Snapshot Materialized Views - GSoC
Massa, Harald Armin c...@ghum.de writes: please do not fortget the: create or replace MATERIALIZED VIEW option. Please do. For something as complex as a table or view, CREATE OR REPLACE is a lot more complicated than it is for simple objects like functions. (See flamewar just a couple weeks ago about C.O.R. vs CREATE IF NOT EXISTS for tables.) Putting this on the to-do list for the GSOC project will just about guarantee failure. It's most likely too large a task for a GSOC project already... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Snapshot Materialized Views - GSoC
On May 21, 2010, at 15:59 , Robert Haas wrote: 2010/5/20 Pavel baro...@seznam.cz: For this summer I have plan to make patch inplementing snapshot materialized views (MV). I believe it will not be end of effort to implement more of MV. But I / we need discuss MV syntax and exact behaviour so I have some questions about that for all of you: a) relkind for materialized view in pg_class? - I'm voting for char 'm' quite obvious why, but not sure about alias: 1 - RELKIND_MVIEW 2 - RELKIND_MATVIEW or any other ideas? I think the prior question is whether we need to create a new relkind at all. I'm prepared to believe that the answer is yes, but I'd like to see a clear justification of why we can't use either 'v' or 'r'. It seems to me that a materialized view is a lot like a regular old table with a special rewrite rule attached to it somewhere. I guess the justification is that with the same argument you could argue that a view should have relkind 'r', since it's just an empty table with a rewrite rule attached. I think relkind is mostly there to make pg_dump's and the information schema's job easier - without it, distinguishing tables with ON SELECT rules from views seem rather AI-complete. The same holds for materialized views vs. tables and materialized views vs. views. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Snapshot Materialized Views - GSoC
First of all, I really appreciate you gave me change to participate on GSoC. It's great chance for me. For this summer I have plan to make patch inplementing snapshot materialized views (MV). I believe it will not be end of effort to implement more of MV. But I / we need discuss MV syntax and exact behaviour so I have some questions about that for all of you: a) relkind for materialized view in pg_class? - I'm voting for char 'm' quite obvious why, but not sure about alias: 1 - RELKIND_MVIEW 2 - RELKIND_MATVIEW or any other ideas? b) create MV syntax? - CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname AS ..., I think it is quite obvious to do so, but I had to ask c) refresh command syntax? 1 - ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname REFRESH or 2 - REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname d) what to do when someone use INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE against MV? 1 - raise error? - I prefer this option 2 - let commands change MV? (no chance to let changes propagate to source tables, not for this summer :) if pg lets user to DML against MV, I expect that triggers should work too e) what to do when someone drop table or column? - it behave like it was a classic view. Fire error and hint - CASCADE option will remove MV ERROR: cannot drop table adresa because other objects depend on it DETAIL: materialized view adresa_mv depends on table adresa HINT: Use DROP ... CASCADE to drop the dependent objects too. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Snapshot Materialized Views - GSoC
2010/5/20 Pavel baro...@seznam.cz: d) what to do when someone use INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE against MV? 1 - raise error? - I prefer this option +1, FWIW 2 - let commands change MV? (no chance to let changes propagate to source tables, not for this summer :) if pg lets user to DML against MV, I expect that triggers should work too no, if you don't propagate then you don't have a view of the tables the MV comes from... error if you'll not implement propagation now -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
