On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> wrote: > Barring a sudden confluence of opinion, I will go with TRUNCATE for > the initial spelling. I tend to favor that spelling for several > reasons. One was the size of the patch needed to add the opposite > of REFRESH to the backend code:
FWIW, I found Andres's point about closing the door on updatable views quite convincing. If at any point we want to add updatable materialized views, it seems like a bad inconsistency to have TRUNCATE mean something completely different from DELETE. While update capability for materialized views might not be a common use case, I don't think it's fair to completely shut the door on it to have easier implementation and shorter syntax. Especially as the shorter syntax is semantically inconsistent - normal truncate removes the data, materialized view just makes the data inaccessible until the next refresh. Sorry for weighing in late, but it seemed to me that this point didn't get enough consideration. Ants Aasma -- Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH Gröhrmühlgasse 26 A-2700 Wiener Neustadt Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
