2017-05-26 17:58 GMT-03:00 Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@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). -- Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento <http://www.timbira.com.br>
