Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?

On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 19:54 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> 2010/12/7 Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
> > 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)
> >
>
> it's question if this is task more for EnterpriseDB and less for PostgreSQL?

Well no I don't think that is a valid question honestly. EDB Advanced
server is a proprietary product that has zero standing with the
community direction. That is not a negative remark on EDB or Advanced
server just that it really isn't our concern.

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