| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name> |
| Cc: | Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage |
| Date: | 2022-12-02 23:11:46 |
| Message-ID: | 2145870.1670022706@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-general |
Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name> writes:
> Could it be a bug? Materialized views are a Postgres extension[1] (I always
> thought they are standard.) But I'd expect them to be included when talking
> about "views". Maybe they are not included because they are considered being
> closer to physical tables[2] than views. Yet their dependencies would justify
> inclusion in view_table_usage.
The reasoning is that the information_schema views are defined by the
SQL standard and therefore should only show content that matches the
standard. Thus, they ignore PG-invented objects like matviews and
sequences. Some other projects adopt more liberal views about
what should be shown in those views, but that one is our policy.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Doc comments form | 2022-12-03 08:54:32 | Explanation of the ROUND function with NUMERIC as an argument |
| Previous Message | Erik Wienhold | 2022-12-02 22:47:21 | Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zheng Li | 2022-12-02 23:48:59 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |
| Previous Message | Erik Wienhold | 2022-12-02 22:47:21 | Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage |