| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? |
| Date: | 2010-12-06 20:31:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1291667462.20631.6640.camel@jd-desktop |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 15:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 13:57 -0600, Andy Colson wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> The idea of synonyms for non-table things was pretty much rejected
> already on the -hackers thread.
Well I was referring to basically anything that is stored in pg_class
(not operators or functions).
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
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 20:33:14 | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-06 20:27:31 | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? |