Peter Eisentraut <> 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 (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to