From: | "Erik Rijkers" <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "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 17:14:48 |
Message-ID: | 7eaefd1edb4db28832310b8013d5477b.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, February 20, 2013 16:28, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> 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.
Absolutely - I agree pg_matviews is much better than adding deviating information_schema stuff.
Thank you,
Erik Rijkers
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2013-02-20 17:59:59 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-02-20 16:58:15 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2013-02-20 17:59:59 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-02-20 16:58:15 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |