On 10/16/14 9:45 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Alright, coming back to this, I have to ask- how are matviews different > from views from the SQL standard's perspective? I tried looking through > the standard to figure it out (and I admit that I probably missed > something), but the only thing appears to be a statement in the standard > that (paraphrased) "functions are run with the view is queried" and that > strikes me as a relatively minor point..
To me, the main criterion is that you cannot DROP VIEW a materialized view. Generally, if the information schema claims that a view/table/function/etc. named "foo" exists, then I should be able to operate on "foo" using the basic operations for a view/table/function/etc. of that name. I think think DROP VIEW is a basic operation for a view. Others might disagree. More subtly, if we claim that a materialized view is a view, then we cannot have asynchronously updated materialized views, because then we have different semantics. All of this is a judgement call in corner cases. But I don't think this is a corner case at all. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
