Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> That being the case, lumping them as being the "same"
>>> operation feels like the wrong thing, and so we should choose a
>>> different name for the MV operation.
>>
>> There is currently no truncation of MV data without rendering
>> the MV unscannable. Do you still feel it needs a different
>> command name?
>
> You didn't say anything that changed my opinion: it doesn't feel
> like a TRUNCATE to me. It's not changing the object to a
> different but entirely valid state, which is what TRUNCATE does.
>
> Peter claimed upthread that REFRESH is a subcommand of ALTER
> MATERIALIZE VIEW
It's not, nor do I think it should be.
> and that this operation should be another one. That sounds
> pretty reasonable from here.
That feels completely wrong to me. For one thing, I can't think of
any ALTER commands to populate or remove data. What did you think
of the idea of something like DISCARD MATERIALIZED VIEW DATA as a
new statment? Or maybe RESET MATERIALIZED VIEW?
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
