| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <pgmail(at)joh(dot)to>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Date: | 2013-02-20 14:29:45 |
| Message-ID: | 5124DDD9.1040800@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 2/19/13 5:22 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:09:13PM +0100, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>> On Sat, February 16, 2013 02:01, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> matview-v4.patch.gz
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was wondering if material views should not go into information_schema. I was thinking either
>> .views or .tables. Have you considered this?
>
> I'm guessing it'd be .views if anything. Haven't been able to
> decipher from section 11 of the standard (Schemata) whether the
> standard has anything to say on the matter.
I suppose one should be able to expect that if one finds a view in the
information schema, then one should be able to use DROP VIEW to remove
it. Which in this case wouldn't work. So I don't think including a
materialized view under views or tables is appropriate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-02-20 14:37:04 | pgsql: Don't pass NULL to fprintf, if a bogus connection string is give |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-02-20 11:43:42 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-02-20 14:41:39 | Re: CREATE RULE "_RETURN" and toast tables |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2013-02-20 14:23:45 | Re: streaming header too small |