| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(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 15:28:25 |
| Message-ID: | 1361374105.73929.YahooMailNeo@web162903.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> 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.
Right. I think adding pg_matviews covers the stated use-case
enough to answer Erik's concern. I'm not going to mess with adding
non-standard stuff to the standard views.
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-02-20 16:20:41 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-20 15:24:14 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-02-20 15:42:46 | Re: JSON Function Bike Shedding |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-20 15:24:14 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |