From: PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
To: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Cc: eric@aquameta.com
Subject: order by in materialized views
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 22:48:20 +0000
Message-ID: <155294930002.30378.5515416999171159375@wrigleys.postgresql.org> (raw)
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/rules-materializedviews.html
Description:
The examples contain ORDER BY clauses in the definition of a materialized
view. However, ORDER BY clauses do not work on materialized views after
they refresh (at the very least, folks tell me they are never guaranteed at
all because mat views are just tables under the hood). This can be
confusing for users since they're called "materialized views", one might
expect them to behave like views and honor the order by clause they were
defined with unless you're manipulating the results.
I'd suggest a) not using ORDER BY in the examples for mat views, and b)
putting some documentation that clarifies that materialized views disregard
ORDER BY statements.
Thanks,
Eric
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: noreply@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org, eric@aquameta.com
Subject: Re: order by in materialized views
In-Reply-To: <155294930002.30378.5515416999171159375@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox