Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> - Materialized views not included. I think that is an intentional
> omission. It's valid to reconsider, but it would be to be a separate
> discussion.
Yes. The problem is that matviews are not in the SQL standard, so
what are you going to show in tables.table_type? Do they even belong
there, rather than under "views"?
Our approach to date has been that objects that are outside the scope of
what can be shown standards-compliantly should just be omitted from the
information_schema views. Thus for example exclusion constraints are
omitted. They're certainly a type of constraint, but we can't wedge them
into the information_schema view of things without having not-per-spec
output of some sort. I think the same policy must apply to matviews.
It's not entirely clear to me that it was a good idea for 262e821d
to expose partitioned tables in information_schema. By doing that,
you're essentially arguing that there is no reason for an application
to know the difference between a plain table and a partitioned one.
Maybe that's true, but it's not incontrovertible.
regards, tom lane