2017-05-26 17:58 GMT-03:00 Peter Eisentraut <

> 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 -
   PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento

Reply via email to