Oh ok. Not to cause confusion, but after I suggested I would request an update to the docs, I thought maybe it would be better to ask if the VTU's code could be modified to include MVs. So I sent a request to pgsql-hackers (I think that's the list to use for feature requests). But from what you're saying, Tom, that may be a fruitless endeavor. If they reply back "nope", then I'll submit a request to have the documentation updated.
Thanks for everyone's contributions! Jon On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:11 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Erik Wienhold <e...@ewie.name> writes: > > Could it be a bug? Materialized views are a Postgres extension[1] (I > always > > thought they are standard.) But I'd expect them to be included when > talking > > about "views". Maybe they are not included because they are considered > being > > closer to physical tables[2] than views. Yet their dependencies would > justify > > inclusion in view_table_usage. > > The reasoning is that the information_schema views are defined by the > SQL standard and therefore should only show content that matches the > standard. Thus, they ignore PG-invented objects like matviews and > sequences. Some other projects adopt more liberal views about > what should be shown in those views, but that one is our policy. > > regards, tom lane >
