On 10/19/19 11:10 AM, Isaac Morland wrote: > On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 10:53, Andrew Dunstan > <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com > <mailto:andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote: > > > > In general, I'm not opposed to accepting and ignoring the > MATERIALIZED > > syntax (assuming we'd only accept AS MATERIALIZED, but not the > negative > > variant). > > > > FWIW I'm not sure the "we don't want to upgrade application code > at the > > same time as the database" is really tenable. > > I'm -1 for exactly this reason. > > In any case, if you insist on using the same code with pre-12 and > post-12 releases, this should be achievable (at least in most > cases) by > using the "offset 0" trick, shouldn't it? > > > That embeds a temporary hack in the application code indefinitely. > > If only we had Guido's (Python) time machine. We could go back and > start accepting "AS MATERIALIZED" as noise words starting from version > 7 or something.
let me know when that's materialized :-) cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
