| From: | David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Date: | 2012-11-27 14:17:14 |
| Message-ID: | 68BBE549-5AB1-4776-BC8F-4ED301C0227B@yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 27, 2012, at 5:25, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)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 only want to perform a partial refresh. With a function call that becomes more obtuse.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-11-27 14:20:30 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-11-27 14:15:06 | Re: DEALLOCATE IF EXISTS |