From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Pgsql Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
Date: | 2012-11-27 15:32:18 |
Message-ID: | 9098.1354030338@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Under that light, using ALTER is strange indeed.
Agreed, seems like a poor choice.
> I still don't like
> using LOAD that much, allow me to try a last syntax proposal. Well all I
> can find just now would be:
> UPDATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mv FOR EACH ROW;
> UPDATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mv FOR EACH STATEMENT [ CONCURRENTLY ];
> The only value of such a proposal is that it's not LOAD and it's still
> not introducing any new keyword. Oh it's also avoiding to overload the
> SNAPSHOT keyword. Well, it still does not look like the best candidate.
I think this syntax would require making MATERIALIZED (and possibly also
VIEW) fully reserved keywords, which would be better avoided.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-11-27 15:47:58 | Re: Do we need so many hint bits? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-11-27 15:07:34 | Re: foreign key locks |