Postgres triggers and no-op updates
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
On Postgres 9.5 I've implemented an eager materialised view with upsert triggers on UPDATE (I need incremental updating, and the built-in materialised views don't support that), this seems to work well.
But I also have the need to initialise these tables on existing DBs, and sometimes to truncate and rebuild them; I need the built-in REFRESH MATERIALIZED VTEW. I could duplicate the upsert queries in the triggers, modifying the trigger-specific code, but I don't like duplicate code.
I find that running a no-op UPDATE on the trigger's source table(s)
UPDATE source_table SET id = id;
does trigger my triggers, and so updates the view as required.
I've not come across this sort of "touch" query before, and worry that that it might be fragile -- Postgres happens to behave like this now, but it's not standard and will change in 9.6. A justified worry?
postgresql triggers materialized-views
asked Nov 21 at 0:04
jjg
201210
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
On Postgres 9.5 I've implemented an eager materialised view with upsert triggers on UPDATE (I need incremental updating, and the built-in materialised views don't support that), this seems to work well.
But I also have the need to initialise these tables on existing DBs, and sometimes to truncate and rebuild them; I need the built-in REFRESH MATERIALIZED VTEW. I could duplicate the upsert queries in the triggers, modifying the trigger-specific code, but I don't like duplicate code.
I find that running a no-op UPDATE on the trigger's source table(s)
UPDATE source_table SET id = id;
does trigger my triggers, and so updates the view as required.
I've not come across this sort of "touch" query before, and worry that that it might be fragile -- Postgres happens to behave like this now, but it's not standard and will change in 9.6. A justified worry?
postgresql triggers materialized-views
asked Nov 21 at 0:04
jjg
201210
1
This idle update in no way differs from any other real update. It doesn't depend on the Postgres version and doesn't seem it would change in future.
– klin
Nov 21 at 0:58
The behavior won't change precisely because that would break use cases like this.
– Laurenz Albe
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
On Postgres 9.5 I've implemented an eager materialised view with upsert triggers on UPDATE (I need incremental updating, and the built-in materialised views don't support that), this seems to work well.
But I also have the need to initialise these tables on existing DBs, and sometimes to truncate and rebuild them; I need the built-in REFRESH MATERIALIZED VTEW. I could duplicate the upsert queries in the triggers, modifying the trigger-specific code, but I don't like duplicate code.
I find that running a no-op UPDATE on the trigger's source table(s)
UPDATE source_table SET id = id;
does trigger my triggers, and so updates the view as required.
I've not come across this sort of "touch" query before, and worry that that it might be fragile -- Postgres happens to behave like this now, but it's not standard and will change in 9.6. A justified worry?
postgresql triggers materialized-views
asked Nov 21 at 0:04
jjg
201210
On Postgres 9.5 I've implemented an eager materialised view with upsert triggers on UPDATE (I need incremental updating, and the built-in materialised views don't support that), this seems to work well.
But I also have the need to initialise these tables on existing DBs, and sometimes to truncate and rebuild them; I need the built-in REFRESH MATERIALIZED VTEW. I could duplicate the upsert queries in the triggers, modifying the trigger-specific code, but I don't like duplicate code.
I find that running a no-op UPDATE on the trigger's source table(s)
UPDATE source_table SET id = id;
does trigger my triggers, and so updates the view as required.
I've not come across this sort of "touch" query before, and worry that that it might be fragile -- Postgres happens to behave like this now, but it's not standard and will change in 9.6. A justified worry?
postgresql triggers materialized-views
postgresql triggers materialized-views
asked Nov 21 at 0:04
jjg
201210
asked Nov 21 at 0:04
jjg
201210
asked Nov 21 at 0:04
jjg
201210
asked Nov 21 at 0:04
jjg
201210
asked Nov 21 at 0:04
jjg
201210
201210
1
This idle update in no way differs from any other real update. It doesn't depend on the Postgres version and doesn't seem it would change in future.
– klin
Nov 21 at 0:58
The behavior won't change precisely because that would break use cases like this.
– Laurenz Albe
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
This idle update in no way differs from any other real update. It doesn't depend on the Postgres version and doesn't seem it would change in future.
– klin
Nov 21 at 0:58
The behavior won't change precisely because that would break use cases like this.
– Laurenz Albe
2 days ago
1
1
This idle update in no way differs from any other real update. It doesn't depend on the Postgres version and doesn't seem it would change in future.
– klin
Nov 21 at 0:58
This idle update in no way differs from any other real update. It doesn't depend on the Postgres version and doesn't seem it would change in future.
– klin
Nov 21 at 0:58
The behavior won't change precisely because that would break use cases like this.
– Laurenz Albe
2 days ago
The behavior won't change precisely because that would break use cases like this.
– Laurenz Albe
2 days ago
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53403464%2fpostgres-triggers-and-no-op-updates%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
This idle update in no way differs from any other real update. It doesn't depend on the Postgres version and doesn't seem it would change in future.
– klin
Nov 21 at 0:58
The behavior won't change precisely because that would break use cases like this.
– Laurenz Albe
2 days ago