On Nov 27, 2012, at 5:25, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> wrote:
>
> So my proposal for the current feature would be:
>
> ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW mv UPDATE [ CONCURRENTLY ];
> UPDATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mv;
>
> The choice of keywords and syntax here hopefully clearly hint the user
> about the locking behavior of the commands, too. And as we said, the
> bare minimum for this patch does *not* include the CONCURRENTLY option,
> which we still all want to have (someday). :)
>
I dislike using ALTER syntax to perform a data-only action.
The other advantage of non-functional syntax is that you could more easily supply some form of where clause should you
onlywant to perform a partial refresh. With a function call that becomes more obtuse.
David J.
