Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue dic 02 17:27:01 -0300 2010:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of mié dic 01 17:13:35 -0300 2010:
> >> > Well, porting applications from other database systems that support synonyms
> >> > (i.e. Oracle, DB2, SQL Server).
> >> SQL Server supports synonyms? If it's not Oracle-only, it's a more
> >> powerful argument to have the feature.
> > I think it's worth mentioning that in SQL Server, synonyms are not
> > schema-qualified; they're "global" objects.
> Seems like they have more than one kind.
Yeah, the Oracle system is a lot more complex than SQL Server's, but I
was only talking about the latter, for which see here:
> The list of objects for which they support synonyms is also
The bit that allows a synonym to reference another synonym seems like
worth considering further (either reject them altogether, or have some
way to deal with possible cycles). I think the original proposal in
this thread didn't mention them at all.
(I don't think we should consider synonyms for either functions or
stored procedures; that would make the current mess of function
resolution rules a lot messier.)
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2010-12-02 20:54:54|
|Subject: Re: V3: Idle in transaction cancellation|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-12-02 20:27:01|
|Subject: Re: Another proposal for table synonyms|