| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? |
| Date: | 2010-12-06 20:02:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1291665747.20631.6639.camel@jd-desktop |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 13:57 -0600, Andy Colson wrote:
> On 12/6/2010 1:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Hey -general,
> >
> > Command Prompt is currently considering writing a patch to provide
> > synonyms to PostgreSQL. Is this something the community is interested
> > in? Do we have use cases for it? MSSQL, DB2 and Oracle support them.
> >
> > Reference thread:
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg02043.php
> >
> > Joshua D. Drake
>
> I dont understand the need for it. Dont view's do the exact same thing
> (plus even more)? What does a synonym offer that a view does not?
SYNONYMS work for things that aren't a table.
JD
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael C Rosenstein | 2010-12-06 20:13:25 | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? |
| Previous Message | Andy Colson | 2010-12-06 19:57:14 | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? |