Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)


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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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.



In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2006-03-14 22:08:59
Subject: Re: CREATE SYNONYM ...
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-03-14 17:18:56
Subject: Re: CREATE SYNONYM ...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group