Re: Materialized views WIP patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Materialized views WIP patch
Date
Msg-id 18535.1361520612@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Materialized views WIP patch  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2013-02-21 14:11:10 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> DISABLE MATERIALIZED VIEW mv;� -- ALTER clause for constraints
>> DISCARD MATERIALIZED VIEW DATA mv;� -- session state
>> RELEASE MATERIALIZED VIEW DATA mv;� -- savepoint
>> RESET MATERIALIZED VIEW DATA mv;� -- run-time parameter
>> 
>> I think any of these could work.� I'm personally most inclined
>> toward DISABLE MATERIALIZED VIEW.� It seems to convey the semantics
>> better, especially if you leave out DATA as an additonal word. 

> I vote for RESET or DISCARD. DISABLE sounds more like you disable
> automatic refreshes or somesuch.

Yeah, I don't much like DISABLE either.  I'm also concerned about
overloading RESET this way --- that statement has complicated-enough
syntax already, not to mention way too many shades of meaning.  So that
leaves me voting for DISCARD M.V. DATA, which seems pretty precise.
It's a bit verbose, but since when has SQL been succinct?
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: OSSP UUID present but cannot be compiled
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: use_remote_explain missing in docs of postgres_fdw