Re: Materialized views WIP patch

On Mar 6, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> wrote:

> I also think that something should be done about the documentation
> for indexes.  Right now that always refers to a "table".  It would
> clearly be awkward to change that to "table or materialized view"
> everywhere.  I wonder if most of thosse should be changed to
> "relation" with a few mentions that the relation could be a table
> or a materialized view, or whether some less intrusive change would
> be better.  Opinions welcome.

Isn’t a materialized view really just a table that gets updated periodically? And isn’t a non-matierialized view also
thoughtof as a “relation”? 

If the answer to both those questions is “yes,” I think the term should remain “table,” with a few mentions that the
termincludes materialized views (and excludes foreign tables). 

Best,

David