| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Date: | 2013-02-28 16:54:38 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaNEZuXf54xKnbjJdjwg0TWNfhyhedo_CWMuR+Px4EvPg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Well, personally, I'm in favor of either TRUNCATE or ALTER
>> MATERIALIZED VIEW ... DISCARD. I think it's a dangerous precedent to
>> suppose that we're going to start using DISCARD for things that have
>> nothing to do with the existing meanings of DISCARD.
>
> Yeah, there's actually a serious problem with choosing DISCARD:
> surely we are not going to include "trash all MVs" in the behavior
> of DISCARD ALL. So unless you would like to say that DISCARD ALL
> doesn't mean what it appears to mean, we can't make MV reset be
> one of the sub-flavors of DISCARD.
Good point.
> So that seems to leave us with either TRUNCATE or an ALTER sub-syntax.
> Personally I'd prefer the latter but it's surely debatable.
I agree.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-28 17:52:58 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-02-28 16:32:24 | Re: pgsql: Add support for piping COPY to/from an external program. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-02-28 17:20:53 | Re: sql_drop Event Trigger |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-02-28 16:37:27 | Building on MinGW |