Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > - Materialized views not included. I think that is an intentional > omission. It's valid to reconsider, but it would be to be a separate > discussion.
Yes. The problem is that matviews are not in the SQL standard, so what are you going to show in tables.table_type? Do they even belong there, rather than under "views"? Our approach to date has been that objects that are outside the scope of what can be shown standards-compliantly should just be omitted from the information_schema views. Thus for example exclusion constraints are omitted. They're certainly a type of constraint, but we can't wedge them into the information_schema view of things without having not-per-spec output of some sort. I think the same policy must apply to matviews. It's not entirely clear to me that it was a good idea for 262e821d to expose partitioned tables in information_schema. By doing that, you're essentially arguing that there is no reason for an application to know the difference between a plain table and a partitioned one. Maybe that's true, but it's not incontrovertible. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers