Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > "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.
You mean, specifying an ALTER TABLE which appears to specify a change to some non-data aspect of a table but which is really setting it to the existing state? And it therefore rewrites the table? I suppose that with USING you could actually even have it rewritten with data different from what was there before without changing the structure of the table. Somehow I don't find that pursuasive as an argument for what ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW should rescan the source relations and build a whole new set of data for exactly the same MV definition. Consider that in relational theory a table is considered a relation variable. ALTER is supposed to change the definition of the variable in some way. Other statements are used to change the value contained in the variable. Sure there are some grey areas already, but I don't see where we need to muddy the waters in this case. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
