Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Michael C Rosenstein <mcr(at)mdibl(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?
Date: 2010-12-07 18:47:05
Message-ID: 1291747625.31995.6.camel@jd-desktop
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 09:14 -0500, Michael C Rosenstein wrote:
> I won't press the issue for Postgres any further, but I will attest that
> synonyms work quite elegantly in Oracle, provide valuable functionality,
> and do not generally sow confusion among skilled developers. It sounds
> like the proposed "synonym" feature for Postgres perhaps had a different
> intention than I assumed, however, especially due to the differences
> between the Oracle and PG viz. how "users," "schemas" and "databases" work.

Your perception has been mirrored on the Oracle free list. Really what
PostgreSQL people need to come to grips with is whether or not we want
to make it easier for others to port to Pg or not. (assuming
reasonableness)

JD

>
> Thanks.
>
> /mcr
>
>

--
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 Dmitriy Igrishin 2010-12-07 18:52:30 Re: Tool for data modeling and ER diagram
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2010-12-07 18:45:02 Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?