Re: Materialized views don't show up in information_schema
| От | Stephen Frost |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Materialized views don't show up in information_schema |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20141016134553.GZ28859@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Materialized views don't show up in information_schema (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Materialized views don't show up in information_schema
Re: Materialized views don't show up in information_schema |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e@gmx.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: