On 1/29/19 3:36 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> I hate to bikeshed here, but I think it's better english using that
> style of syntax to say,
> WITH ctename AS [ MATERIALIZATION { ON | OFF } ] ( query )
I had been just about to also engage in bikeshedding, on grounds
that (to me) the MATERIALIZED/NOT MATERIALIZED form seemed more
natural:
FROM GROCER OBTAIN WAXED CUCUMBERS. (this seems downright natural)
FROM GROCER OBTAIN NOT WAXED CUCUMBERS. (nearly natural, s/NOT /UN/)
FROM GROCER OBTAIN WAX ON CUCUMBERS. (these read oddly to me)
FROM GROCER OBTAIN WAX OFF CUCUMBERS.
I do understand Tom's point that the wax-on/wax-off form generalizes
more easily to non-boolean future options. It would really read
better as a parenthetical, so too bad parentheses are already taken
to go around the query.
While gawking at the bikeshed, one more thing came to mind:
I like to hold out hope [1] that, one day, the WITH grammar could
be extended to handle lexically-scoped option settings like those in
the ISO standard.
It doesn't seem to me that any of these current proposals would get
in the way of that. Just another thing to have in mind.
Regards,
-Chap
[1]
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_vs_SQL/XML_Standards#XMLBINARY_and_XMLNAMESPACES