On 10/19/19 11:10 AM, Isaac Morland wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 10:53, Andrew Dunstan
> <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com
> <mailto:andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
>
>
> > In general, I'm not opposed to accepting and ignoring the
> MATERIALIZED
> > syntax (assuming we'd only accept AS MATERIALIZED, but not the
> negative
> > variant).
> >
> > FWIW I'm not sure the "we don't want to upgrade application code
> at the
> > same time as the database" is really tenable.
>
> I'm -1 for exactly this reason.
>
> In any case, if you insist on using the same code with pre-12 and
> post-12 releases, this should be achievable (at least in most
> cases) by
> using the "offset 0" trick, shouldn't it?
>
>
> That embeds a temporary hack in the application code indefinitely.
>
> If only we had Guido's (Python) time machine. We could go back and
> start accepting "AS MATERIALIZED" as noise words starting from version
> 7 or something.
let me know when that's materialized :-)
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
