| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, eg(at)cybertec(dot)at |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE SYNONYM ... |
| Date: | 2006-03-14 21:30:05 |
| Message-ID: | 441735DD.30407@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>Even if they don't all have precisely the same semantics, though, is
>>there an objection in principle to providing synonyms?
>>
>>
>
>The point I was trying to bring out is that they aren't standard,
>which amounts to an objection in principle. I'd at least like to see
>some effort made to demonstrate that we are adopting semantics that
>match a majority of other DBs, rather than inventing something in a
>vacuum which is what appears to be happening in this thread.
>
>
>
I agree.
Maybe one of the proponents could put together a comparison matrix of
how this is done in each of the databases previously mentioned.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-03-14 22:08:59 | Re: CREATE SYNONYM ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-14 17:18:56 | Re: CREATE SYNONYM ... |