> On 02/12/2022 23:22 CET Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It probably wouldn't hurt to have that added to the documentation. I'll post > a message to pgsql-docs. Thanks again! > > Jon Good idea! 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. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/sql-creatematerializedview.html, see Compatibility [2] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/release-9-3.html#AEN119452 > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 4:14 PM Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Erik - sorry I missed your reply when I replied to David's. That is > > indeed the issue. The object that the view is querying is a materialized > > view. > > > > Thanks for the link. > > > > Jon > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 3:33 PM Erik Wienhold <ewie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 02/12/2022 21:51 CET Jonathan Lemig <jtlemig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Has anybody ever encountered this, and if so, did you find a resolution? > > > > Or perhaps there other limitations with the VTU that I'm unaware of? > > > > > > Is the one view you cannot find in view_table_usage a materialized view? > > > Because those are not covered by view_table_usage[1]. > > > > > > [1] https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blob;f=src/backend/catalog/information_schema.sql;h=18725a02d1fb6ffda3d218033b972a0ff23aac3b;hb=HEAD#l2605 > > > > > > -- > > > Erik -- Erik
