From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(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: | 2012-11-28 19:53:36 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY7c1sSFf5ScYnQVEvZyVnBZHth2WttKWPAs+MFU4OGcw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I unlike using keywords DO for this purpose - when we use it for
> anonymous blocks
Yeah, I don't much like that either. My original suggestion when
Kevin and I discussed this over voice was ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW ..
REFRESH or ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW .. UPDATE. I don't particularly
like syntaxes involving DO or LOAD because those words already have
strong associations with completely unrelated features. Now, if we
don't want to do that and we don't want to use ALTER for a
data-modifying command either, another option would be to invent a new
toplevel command:
REFRESH <view_name>;
Of course, that does introduce another keyword, but the penalty for a
new unreserved keyword is pretty small. It seems like a rough
analogue of CLUSTER, which could be spelled ALTER TABLE <table_name>
UPDATE TABLE ORDER TO if keyword minimization trumped both concision
and clarity, but it doesn't.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-11-28 20:00:04 | Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-11-28 19:14:19 | Re: pgsql: Refactor flex and bison make rules |