On May 21, 2010, at 15:59 , Robert Haas wrote: > 2010/5/20 Pavel <baro...@seznam.cz>: >> For this summer I have plan to make patch inplementing snapshot materialized >> views (MV). I believe it will not be end of effort to implement more of MV. >> But I / we need discuss MV syntax and exact behaviour so I have some >> questions about that for all of you: >> >> a) relkind for materialized view in pg_class? >> - I'm voting for char 'm' quite obvious why, but not sure about alias: >> 1 - RELKIND_MVIEW >> 2 - RELKIND_MATVIEW >> or any other ideas? > > I think the prior question is whether we need to create a new relkind > at all. I'm prepared to believe that the answer is yes, but I'd like > to see a clear justification of why we can't use either 'v' or 'r'. > It seems to me that a materialized view is a lot like a regular old > table with a special rewrite rule attached to it somewhere.
I guess the justification is that with the same argument you could argue that a view should have relkind 'r', since it's just an empty table with a rewrite rule attached. I think relkind is mostly there to make pg_dump's and the information schema's job easier - without it, distinguishing tables with ON SELECT rules from views seem rather AI-complete. The same holds for materialized views vs. tables and materialized views vs. views. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers