On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM, David E. Wheeler <da...@justatheory.com> wrote: > On Mar 7, 2013, at 7:55 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> wrote: >>> If the answer to both those questions is “yes,” I think the term >>> should remain “table,” with a few mentions that the term includes >>> materialized views (and excludes foreign tables). >> >> And if the answers are "not exactly" and "yes"? > > I still tend to think that the term should remain “table,” with brief > mentions at the top of pages when the term should be assumed to represent > tables and matviews, and otherwise required disambiguations.
This ship has already sailed. There are plenty of places where operations apply to a subset of the relation types that exist today, and we either list them out or refer to "relations" generically. Changing that would require widespread changes to both the documentation and existing error message text. We cannot decide that "table" now means "table or materialized view" any more than we can decide that it means "table or foreign table", as was proposed around the time those changes went in. Yeah, it's more work, and it's a little annoying, but it's also clear. Nothing else is. -- 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
