Re: Materialized views WIP patch

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:

>> That I could probably do.  Do you think they should have a separate
>> pg_stat_user_matviews table, etc., or do you think it would be
>> better to include them in with tables there?
>
> Well, ideally pg_matviews would have matview definitions, and
> pg_stat_matviews would have stats on matview usage and rows.  But see
> what you can get done; I imagine we'll overhaul it for 9.4 anyway once
> we've had a chance to use the feature.

I agree on pg_matviews, but after looking over the existing views
and thinking about what I would use them for as a DBA, I'm inclined
to fold the backing tables for MVs into the _stat_ and _statio_
views -- especially since we already include the backing tables and
indexes for TOAST.  There is a precident for including
implementation details at that level.  The only difference from
TOAST, is that I include the heap and indexes for MVs in the _user_
views.  I'm attaching the patch for just the system_views.sql file
for discussion before I go write docs for this part.

--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company