2012/11/28 Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@mail.com>:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Of the alternatives to LOAD MATERIALIZED VIEW, something involving
> REFRESH seems the best to me. The question is whether REFRESH
> MATERIALIZED VIEW (or just REFRESH) is more clear, and whether it
> is so by enough to merit another keyword. Of course, there is a
> chance that we may wind up needing that keyword for declaring
> incremental updates anyway, so it might be a matter of *when* we do
> it rather than *whether* we do it -- depending on the yet-to-be-
> determined syntax for specifying incremental updates.
>
> My personal preference is still for LOAD MATERIALIZED VIEW because
> it implies a complete regeneration rather than something more
> incremental, but I realize that is subjective.
In this context I prefer REFRESH keyword - I have a LOAD associated
with BULKLOAD, a this is different
Regards
Pavel
>
> -Kevin
