Re: Materialized views don't show up in information_schema

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Sehrope Sarkuni <sehrope(at)jackdb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Materialized views don't show up in information_schema
Date: 2014-10-29 17:37:00
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa=XaiCdwQyP7FjMEcp9pt43yEerFd3nFO7+EwPfh8qhw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> I agree with this, certainly, but these are not considerations that the
> SQL spec takes into account. I've always found it odd of the spec to
> avoid these considerations and concerns, but it is the spec and it's
> viewpoint that we're discussing.

I don't think you can fairly infer anything about how an object not
covered by the spec should be displayed in a spec-compliant view.

>> Trying to say that it's the same kind of an object as something that
>> has neither seems really odd. The overlap between the operations you
>> can do on a materialized view and those you can do on a view is really
>> pretty small.
>
> ... That overlap is exactly the set that you can do on *just* a view,
> no? That's what I was driving towards anyway.

No. Materialized views don't have column defaults, and marking them
security_barrier does nothing.

>> You wouldn't expect to find "butter" and "peanut butter" in the same
>> aisle at the supermarket....
>
> No, though they are both spreadable and tasty. :)

Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-10-29 17:40:59 Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-10-29 17:31:27 Re: proposal: CREATE DATABASE vs. (partial) CHECKPOINT