* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > I agree with this, certainly, but these are not considerations that the
> > SQL spec takes into account. I've always found it odd of the spec to
> > avoid these considerations and concerns, but it is the spec and it's
> > viewpoint that we're discussing.
>
> I don't think you can fairly infer anything about how an object not
> covered by the spec should be displayed in a spec-compliant view.
The characteristics which make mat views different from views are
specifically those that the spec actively avoids discussing at all.
> >> Trying to say that it's the same kind of an object as something that
> >> has neither seems really odd. The overlap between the operations you
> >> can do on a materialized view and those you can do on a view is really
> >> pretty small.
> >
> > ... That overlap is exactly the set that you can do on *just* a view,
> > no? That's what I was driving towards anyway.
>
> No. Materialized views don't have column defaults, and marking them
> security_barrier does nothing.
I'm a bit confused by this- views have column defaults? I agree that
marking them security_barrier does nothing and that bit is interesting
but it also strikes me as a relatively minor point (nothing which is
trying to go by what's in information_schema is going to be looking at
if it's a security_barrier view or not..).
In any case, I don't feel this is really urgent and we don't seem to be
making much progress, so perhaps it'd be best to just chat about it
sometime in Ottawa or NYC and find common ground over a pint. :)
> >> You wouldn't expect to find "butter" and "peanut butter" in the same
> >> aisle at the supermarket....
> >
> > No, though they are both spreadable and tasty. :)
>
> Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
hahaha. This made me laugh. Many thanks. :)
Stephen