Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:02:09 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
	David Fetter <david@fetter.org>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
Message-ID: <20190214160209.GA13250@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <c94d0ddb-d7f8-84be-46a2-8eb569561948@2ndquadrant.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Feb-14, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> On 14/02/2019 16:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> > ... so, have we beaten this topic to death yet?  Can we make a decision?
> > 
> > Personally, I'd be happy with either of the last two patch versions
> > I posted (that is, either AS [[NOT] MATERIALIZED] or
> > AS [MATERIALIZE [ON|OFF]] syntax).  But we gotta pick something.
> 
> If we're not really planning to add any more options, I'd register a
> light vote for MATERIALIZED.  It reads easier, seems more grammatically
> correct, and uses an existing word.

+1 for MATERIALIZED, as I proposed in
https://postgr.es/m/20170503173305.fetj4tz7kd56tjlr@alvherre.pgsql

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services