Unified Materialized View Table Type in information_schema

[jklamer]

Description

Fixes #8207
Supersedes #10745

Additional context and related issues

Release notes

( ) This is not user-visible or docs only and no release notes are required.
( ) Release notes are required, please propose a release note for me.
(X) Release notes are required, with the following suggested text:

# Section
* fixes #8207 
* Materialized Views now show up within information_schema.tables with the table_type of `MATERIALIZED VIEW`

[ebyhr]

Did we already agree on using MATERIALIZED VIEW as the table type? I didn't find such conversations in GitHub or Trino Slack.

If we want to follow spec, we should return "VIEW" for materialized views #10745 (comment)

@findepi Does spec explicitly mention "the table type should be VIEW for materialized views"? Or that's because spec doesn't yet define materialized views?

[jklamer]

@ebyhr I don't believe the spec specifies what Materialized Views should be which makes this tricky. This was just based on other projects and products, so it's by no means final, but I think the conversation should be started and decided on. I mostly drafted this to run all tests and see if there were other places in the code that were relying on materialized views as "Views"

[ebyhr]

@martint Could you confirm whether returning MATERIALIZED VIEW as a table type is okay?

[martint]

No, as it is incompatible with the SQL specification. It may affect tools or clients that expect this table to have return specific values.

[ebyhr]

Relevent Slack thread https://trinodb.slack.com/archives/CP1MUNEUX/p1670951882153739

[findepi]

@jklamer is this work based on @duoluodexiaokeke's #10745

if yes, can you please restore authorship?

[jklamer]

@findepi it was not. I only saw the issue as references in the tests when I started working on it. Let me add him as a co-author because his contribution should be marked and this cause is as much his.

[findepi]

I restarted the CI because sqlserver tests failed.