pg.ddx.io pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedBUG #18998: No materialized views in INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLE_PRIVILEGES
2+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* BUG #18998: No materialized views in INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLE_PRIVILEGES
@ 2025-07-24 17:50 PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: PG Bug reporting form @ 2025-07-24 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; +Cc: lacanoid@ljudmila.org
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 18998
Logged by: Žiga Kranjec
Email address: lacanoid@ljudmila.org
PostgreSQL version: 17.0
Operating system: Any
Description:
View NFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLE_PRIVILEGES contains information for views and
tables, but not materialized views. I found this to be somewhat unexpected.
Since materialized views are conceptually somewhere between views and
tables, it would perhaps make sense to include them.
The standard of course doesn’t say anything about this because it does not
deal with materialized views at all.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: BUG #18998: No materialized views in INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLE_PRIVILEGES
@ 2025-07-24 21:18 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2025-07-24 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lacanoid@ljudmila.org; +Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> View NFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLE_PRIVILEGES contains information for views and
> tables, but not materialized views. I found this to be somewhat unexpected.
> Since materialized views are conceptually somewhere between views and
> tables, it would perhaps make sense to include them.
> The standard of course doesn’t say anything about this because it does not
> deal with materialized views at all.
Yeah, precisely. Our take on the information schema is that it should
show what the standard says, and thus objects that are outside the
standard should not appear there at all. Obviously that's a bit of
a judgment call, but it saves us from having to make a bunch of other
judgment calls about just how much we'd want to warp the information
schema's behavior.
For example, in the case at hand it'd be darn weird for matviews
to be reflected in TABLE_PRIVILEGES but not TABLES, so then we'd
have to allow a nonstandard value of TABLES.TABLE_TYPE, and then we're
already some way down the slippery slope to something that claims to
be the information schema but contains much that a standards-compliant
client wouldn't know what to do with.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-07-24 21:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-07-24 17:50 BUG #18998: No materialized views in INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLE_PRIVILEGES PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
2025-07-24 21:18 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox