On 27/05/17 02:13, Euler Taveira wrote:
> 2017-05-26 17:58 GMT-03:00 Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
> <mailto:peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>>:
>
> On 5/24/17 15:38, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> >>> I wonder if we actually need the SKIP REFRESH syntax, there is the
> >>> "REFRESH [ WITH ... ]" when user wants to refresh, so if REFRESH is not
> >>> specified, we can just behave as if SKIP REFRESH was used, it's not like
> >>> there is 3rd possible behavior.
> >>
> >> Attached patch does exactly that.
> >
> > And of course I forgot to update docs...
>
> Do we want not-refreshing to be the default behavior?
>
>
> It is a different behavior from the initial proposal. However, we
> fortunately have ALTER SUBSCRIPTION foo REFRESH PUBLICATION and can
> refresh later. Also, if "refresh" is more popular than "skip", it is
> just a small word in the command. That's the price we pay to avoid
> ambiguity that the previous syntax had.At least I think Petr's proposal
> is less confusing than mine (my proposal maintains current behavior but
> can cause some confusion).
>
Actually another possibility would be to remove the REFRESH keyword
completely and just have [ WITH (...) ] and have the refresh option
there, ie simplified version of what you have suggested (without the
ugliness of specifying refresh twice to disable).
-- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
