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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Materialized views WIP patch
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY7c1sSFf5ScYnQVEvZyVnBZHth2WttKWPAs+MFU4OGcw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Materialized views WIP patch  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY