On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 10:21 AM Greg Sabino Mullane <htamf...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is the correct interpretation. A regular refresh simply runs the query > and replaces the old view, regardless of the number of rows that have > changed. A concurrent refresh runs the query and updates the rows in place, > so it is very sensitive as to how many of those rows have changed. This also > means that many concurrent refreshes can lead to table bloat. And it will > generate more WAL than a regular refresh. > > My takeaway: use regular refresh when you can. Switch to concurrent if the > number of changes is very small, or if constant client access to the view is > very important.
This makes sense to me. Many thanks. Cheers, Tobias
