From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Sehrope Sarkuni <sehrope(at)jackdb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Materialized views don't show up in information_schema |
Date: | 2014-10-16 13:45:53 |
Message-ID: | 20141016134553.GZ28859@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net) wrote:
> On 10/10/14 8:44 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > As a comparison, what about unlogged tables? They're not normal tables
> > and they aren't defined by the SQL standard either.
>
> They are normal tables when considered within the scope of the SQL
> standard. The only difference to normal tables is their crash recovery
> behavior, which is outside the scope of the SQL standard.
Alright, coming back to this, I have to ask- how are matviews different
from views from the SQL standard's perspective? I tried looking through
the standard to figure it out (and I admit that I probably missed
something), but the only thing appears to be a statement in the standard
that (paraphrased) "functions are run with the view is queried" and that
strikes me as a relatively minor point..
I'm also curious how other databases address this.. Do none of them put
matviews into information_schema?
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-16 13:48:57 | Re: UPSERT wiki page, and SQL MERGE syntax |
Previous Message | Lucas Lersch | 2014-10-16 13:33:29 | Re: Buffer Requests Trace |