Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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?