Erik Wienhold <ewie@xxxxxxxxx> 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
