> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-
> owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Dimitri Fontaine
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:03 AM
> To: Kevin Grittner
> Cc: Pavel Stehule; Peter Eisentraut; Pgsql Hackers
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Materialized views WIP patch
>
> "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn@mail.com> writes:
> > changing the structure of the table. Somehow I don't find that
> > pursuasive as an argument for what ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW should
> > rescan the source relations and build a whole new set of data for
> > exactly the same MV definition.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > Consider that in relational theory a table is considered a relation
> > variable. ALTER is supposed to change the definition of the variable
> > in some way. Other statements are used to change the value contained
> > in the variable. Sure there are some grey areas already, but I don't
> > see where we need to muddy the waters in this case.
>
> Under that light, using ALTER is strange indeed. 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.
>
> Regards,
Just a thought but how about something like:
DO REFRESH OF MATERIALIZED VIEW mat_view;
In effect we begin overloading the meaning of "DO" to not only mean
anonymous code blocks but to also call pre-defined internal routines that
can be executed without having to use function-call syntax. "MATERIALIZED
VIEW" can be more generic "e.g., TABLE" if the need arises, the REFRESH
"Action" is generic, and additional clauses can be added after the object
name (FOR, CONCURRENTLY, WHERE, etc...)
David J.
