From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
cc: Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com>, pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage
In-reply-to: <1800921007.42590.1670021241395@office.mailbox.org>
References: 
 <CABR8q__QVKFzaUdQQsyU2wd2TZX1tdv7Q8M5myQ8L=BDDAtjLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2133999369.41448.1670016807570@office.mailbox.org>
 <CABR8q_9-sN65XQqDMwB=-7o8b7igpOVDZKFbGS4BaoFLFivhiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABR8q_8dyq8LwdMvkNpeT6OfBv2mqTTza1t0h1Qem1qAmTODfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1800921007.42590.1670021241395@office.mailbox.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
	message dated "Fri, 02 Dec 2022 23:47:21 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2145869.1670022706.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 18:11:46 -0500
Message-ID: <2145870.1670022706@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2145870.1670022706%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> writes:
> Could it be a bug?  Materialized views are a Postgres extension[1] (I al=
ways
> thought they are standard.)  But I'd expect them to be included when tal=
king
> about "views".  Maybe they are not included because they are considered =
being
> closer to physical tables[2] than views.  Yet their dependencies would j=
ustify
> inclusion in view_table_usage.

The reasoning is that the information_schema views are defined by the
SQL standard and therefore should only show content that matches the
standard.  Thus, they ignore PG-invented objects like matviews and
sequences.  Some other projects adopt more liberal views about
what should be shown in those views, but that one is our policy.

			regards, tom lane