Re: Materialized views WIP patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: Materialized views WIP patch
Date
Msg-id 72AFFA40-91AF-496A-91C1-64594956082D@justatheory.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Materialized views WIP patch  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>)
Responses Re: Materialized views WIP patch  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mar 7, 2013, at 7:55 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> wrote:

>> If the answer to both those questions is “yes,” I think the term
>> should remain “table,” with a few mentions that the term includes
>> materialized views (and excludes foreign tables).
>
> And if the answers are "not exactly" and "yes"?

I still tend to think that the term should remain “table,” with brief mentions at the top of pages when the term should
beassumed to represent tables and matviews, and otherwise required disambiguations. 

Trying to make the least possible work for you here. :-)

David




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: odd behavior in materialized view
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: odd behavior in materialized view