On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > I agree with this, certainly, but these are not considerations that the > SQL spec takes into account. I've always found it odd of the spec to > avoid these considerations and concerns, but it is the spec and it's > viewpoint that we're discussing.
I don't think you can fairly infer anything about how an object not covered by the spec should be displayed in a spec-compliant view. >> Trying to say that it's the same kind of an object as something that >> has neither seems really odd. The overlap between the operations you >> can do on a materialized view and those you can do on a view is really >> pretty small. > > ... That overlap is exactly the set that you can do on *just* a view, > no? That's what I was driving towards anyway. No. Materialized views don't have column defaults, and marking them security_barrier does nothing. >> You wouldn't expect to find "butter" and "peanut butter" in the same >> aisle at the supermarket.... > > No, though they are both spreadable and tasty. :) Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
