>I disagree with the notion that defining a relation in terms of a >query (like a view) and materializing the results (like a table) >makes "materialized view" a misleading name.
IMHO, I disagree. I feel a better name would be "materialized table".
However, it is too late to change that now. Just my personal opinion.
Sounds redundant - and implies that a TABLE without the materialized prefix isn't, which is not true.
The only other name I came up with was worse...CREATE VIEWTABLE AS