Skip to content

doc/user: add LibreDB Studio to SQL clients - #38687

Open
kaya-abdullah wants to merge 3 commits into
MaterializeInc:mainfrom
kaya-abdullah:add-libredb-studio
Open

doc/user: add LibreDB Studio to SQL clients#38687
kaya-abdullah wants to merge 3 commits into
MaterializeInc:mainfrom
kaya-abdullah:add-libredb-studio

Conversation

@kaya-abdullah

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Motivation

LibreDB Studio is an open source, browser-based SQL IDE that connects to Materialize over the PostgreSQL wire protocol. This adds it to the SQL clients page alongside DataGrip, DBeaver and TablePlus.

This reopens #38680, which I could not reopen directly through GitHub (the API rejected the reopen and no reopen button showed up for me either). Same branch, with the fix described below on top.

Description

Added a ### LibreDB Studio section after TablePlus. The SQL editor works fully, including Materialize specific statements like SHOW MATERIALIZED VIEWS and SHOW SOURCES. The object browser lists real tables, views and materialized views with their columns.

@sjwiesman closed #38680 because the object browser and monitoring dashboard both failed outright. That turned out to be a bug in LibreDB Studio, not a gap in Materialize: MATERIALIZED is a reserved keyword that broke the schema introspection query, and the monitoring dashboard errored on connect instead of degrading. Both are fixed in libredb/libredb-studio#578, and the tip in this PR is updated to describe current behavior instead of the old restrictions.

LibreDB Studio connects to Materialize over the PostgreSQL wire
protocol. The SQL editor works fully, including Materialize specific
statements. The object browser and monitoring dashboard both depend
on PostgreSQL catalog objects Materialize does not have, so those two
are called out as not working rather than left to be discovered.
The object browser and monitoring dashboard restrictions documented
here were bugs in LibreDB Studio, fixed upstream in
libredb/libredb-studio#578. Update the tip to describe current
behavior instead of the outdated restrictions.
@kaya-abdullah
kaya-abdullah requested a review from a team as a code owner September 6, 2026 19:09
@kaya-abdullah

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Linking back for context: this is the same branch as #38680, which I could not reopen after pushing the fix (the reopen API rejected it and there was no reopen button available to me either). Opened this instead of leaving the fix unseen on a closed PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant