"Kevin Grittner" <kgri...@mail.com> writes: > An ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW option was my first thought on syntax to > do what LOAD does in the current patch. But it bothered me that I > couldn't think of any other cases where ALTER <some-object-type> > only changed the data contained within the object and had no other > impact. Are you both really comfortable with an ALTER MATERIALIZED > VIEW which has no effect other than to update the data? It seems > wrong to me.
I think you can already do that with some clever use of alter table ... type using, or alter table set default. > Sure -- a CONCURRENTLY option for LMV (or AMVU) seems like one of > the next steps. I'll feel more confident about implementing that > when it appears that we have shaken the last bugs out of > CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY, since anything which affects those > statements will probably also matter here. Sure. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
