MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAG1YDPdOvL3cm_1TLEi9ZUsetw0eSPKh57WqfU6-+k2sucuMSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMAYy4LD9TDO6ohfZwZ7OWOfu3oUZKQxi1Y=qt=36C65DL4jOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG1YDPeH+FBFv9_w1ktPn3JyJNA1F8L_6qaMcRZZQsbBjXtxww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMAYy4L=-n=VzyMi6s6tg0PSJcR6mXH2D2K1vk526uLEZkC31A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMAYy4L9msh+hzPwYPVypVrxDPa4U2A0AV_HmwBzO7rY_ThOhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG1YDPdOvL3cm_1TLEi9ZUsetw0eSPKh57WqfU6-+k2sucuMSw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 22:23:28 -0300
Message-ID: 
 <CAGTBQpZbLouBR2zbTkW9oU+mXw=R8ZcVH-1h3U+b+962iyd2Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: partitioning materialized views
To: Shaun Thomas <shaun.thomas@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Rick Otten <rottenwindfish@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-performa." <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Shaun Thomas
<shaun.thomas@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> I don't think the downstream dependencies will let that work without
>> rebuilding them as well.   The drop fails (without a cascade), and the other
>> views and matviews that are built off of this all simply point to x_old.
>
> Wow, ouch. Yeah, I'd neglected to consider dependent objects. Your
> only "out" at this point is to either add or utilize a "modified_date"
> column of some kind, so you can maintain a different MV with some
> recent window of data, and regularly merge that into a physical local
> copy (not an MV) sort of like a running ETL. Though that won't help
> with deletes, unfortunately.

You have another out: rebuild the dependent views before the drop.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance