Oh ok. Not to cause confusion, but after I suggested I would request an update to the docs, I thought maybe it would be better to ask if the VTU's code could be modified to include MVs. So I sent a request to pgsql-hackers (I think that's the list to use for feature requests). But from what you're saying, Tom, that may be a fruitless endeavor. If they reply back "nope", then I'll submit a request to have the documentation updated.
Thanks for everyone's contributions!
Jon
Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> writes:
> 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.
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