Thread

1. BUG #18998: No materialized views in INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLE_PRIVILEGES

   PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> — 2025-07-24T17:50:36Z

   The following bug has been logged on the website:
   
   Bug reference:      18998
   Logged by:          Žiga Kranjec
   Email address:      lacanoid@ljudmila.org
   PostgreSQL version: 17.0
   Operating system:   Any
   Description:        
   
   View NFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLE_PRIVILEGES contains information for views and
   tables, but not materialized views. I found this to be somewhat unexpected.
   
   Since materialized views are conceptually somewhere between views and
   tables, it would perhaps make sense to include them.
   
   The standard of course doesn’t say anything about this because it does not
   deal with materialized views at all.
   
   

2. Re: BUG #18998: No materialized views in INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLE_PRIVILEGES

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2025-07-24T21:18:50Z

   PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
   > View NFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLE_PRIVILEGES contains information for views and
   > tables, but not materialized views. I found this to be somewhat unexpected.
   > Since materialized views are conceptually somewhere between views and
   > tables, it would perhaps make sense to include them.
   > The standard of course doesn’t say anything about this because it does not
   > deal with materialized views at all.
   
   Yeah, precisely.  Our take on the information schema is that it should
   show what the standard says, and thus objects that are outside the
   standard should not appear there at all.  Obviously that's a bit of
   a judgment call, but it saves us from having to make a bunch of other
   judgment calls about just how much we'd want to warp the information
   schema's behavior.
   
   For example, in the case at hand it'd be darn weird for matviews
   to be reflected in TABLE_PRIVILEGES but not TABLES, so then we'd
   have to allow a nonstandard value of TABLES.TABLE_TYPE, and then we're
   already some way down the slippery slope to something that claims to
   be the information schema but contains much that a standards-compliant
   client wouldn't know what to do with.
   
   			regards, tom lane