> On 02/12/2022 23:22 CET Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It probably wouldn't hurt to have that added to the documentation. I'll post
> a message to pgsql-docs. Thanks again!
>
> Jon
Good idea!
Could it be a bug? Materialized views are a Postgres extension[1] (I always
thought they are standard.) But I'd expect them to be included when talking
about "views". Maybe they are not included because they are considered being
closer to physical tables[2] than views. Yet their dependencies would justify
inclusion in view_table_usage.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/sql-creatematerializedview.html, see Compatibility
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/release-9-3.html#AEN119452
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 4:14 PM Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Erik - sorry I missed your reply when I replied to David's. That is
> > indeed the issue. The object that the view is querying is a materialized
> > view.
> >
> > Thanks for the link.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 3:33 PM Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> wrote:
> > > > On 02/12/2022 21:51 CET Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Has anybody ever encountered this, and if so, did you find a resolution?
> > > > Or perhaps there other limitations with the VTU that I'm unaware of?
> > >
> > > Is the one view you cannot find in view_table_usage a materialized view?
> > > Because those are not covered by view_table_usage[1].
> > >
> > > [1]
https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blob;f=src/backend/catalog/information_schema.sql;h=18725a02d1fb6ffda3d218033b972a0ff23aac3b;hb=HEAD#l2605
> > >
> > > --
> > > Erik
--
Erik