Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> writes: >> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> That being the case, lumping them as being the "same" >>> operation feels like the wrong thing, and so we should choose a >>> different name for the MV operation. >> >> There is currently no truncation of MV data without rendering >> the MV unscannable. Do you still feel it needs a different >> command name? > > You didn't say anything that changed my opinion: it doesn't feel > like a TRUNCATE to me. It's not changing the object to a > different but entirely valid state, which is what TRUNCATE does. > > Peter claimed upthread that REFRESH is a subcommand of ALTER > MATERIALIZE VIEW
It's not, nor do I think it should be. > and that this operation should be another one. That sounds > pretty reasonable from here. That feels completely wrong to me. For one thing, I can't think of any ALTER commands to populate or remove data. What did you think of the idea of something like DISCARD MATERIALIZED VIEW DATA as a new statment? Or maybe RESET MATERIALIZED VIEW? -- Kevin Grittner EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
