On 10/16/14 9:45 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Alright, coming back to this, I have to ask- how are matviews different
> from views from the SQL standard's perspective? I tried looking through
> the standard to figure it out (and I admit that I probably missed
> something), but the only thing appears to be a statement in the standard
> that (paraphrased) "functions are run with the view is queried" and that
> strikes me as a relatively minor point..
To me, the main criterion is that you cannot DROP VIEW a materialized view.
Generally, if the information schema claims that a
view/table/function/etc. named "foo" exists, then I should be able to
operate on "foo" using the basic operations for a
view/table/function/etc. of that name. I think think DROP VIEW is a
basic operation for a view. Others might disagree.
More subtly, if we claim that a materialized view is a view, then we
cannot have asynchronously updated materialized views, because then we
have different semantics.
All of this is a judgement call in corner cases. But I don't think this
is a corner case at all.