On 27/05/17 02:13, Euler Taveira wrote: > 2017-05-26 17:58 GMT-03:00 Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com > <mailto:peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>>: > > 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). >
Actually another possibility would be to remove the REFRESH keyword completely and just have [ WITH (...) ] and have the refresh option there, ie simplified version of what you have suggested (without the ugliness of specifying refresh twice to disable). -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
