2012/11/28 Kevin Grittner <kgri...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
