Re: Materialized views WIP patch

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
> When I went to do this, I hit a shift/reduce conflict, because with
> TABLE being optional it couldn't tell whether:

> TRUNCATE MATERIALIZED VIEW x, y, z;

> ... was looking for five relations or three.� That goes away with
> MATERIALIZED escalated to TYPE_FUNC_NAME_KEYWORD.� Is that OK?

Not really.  I would much rather see us not bother with this pedantic
syntax than introduce an even-partially-reserved word.

Having said that, I don't think I believe your analysis of why this
doesn't work.  The presence or absence of commas ought to make the
syntax non-ambiguous, I would think.  Maybe you just factored the
grammar wrong.
        regards, tom lane