Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?

From: Dmitriy Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Gauthier, Dave" <dave(dot)gauthier(at)intel(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?
Date: 2010-12-06 21:26:29
Message-ID: AANLkTinRJWQUMADEtkuNEeOONhbv_gDv7UWJRvg74eJq@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

2010/12/7 Dmitriy Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>

>
>
> 2010/12/7 Gauthier, Dave <dave(dot)gauthier(at)intel(dot)com>
>
> I think aliasing non-table/view was mixed by Tom, but just as FYI, aliasing
>> column names would be very helpful in my apps. Aliasing "last_name",
>> "lastname", "surname" together in a people table for example. We have many
>> design sites that have identical data concepts but with different names for
>> the same thing. It would be nice to just equate these names in the DB
>> instead of in perl wrappers around sql calls.
>>
> Interesting, how will you maintain synonyms in a many databases ?
> IMO it is more simple to make abstraction level at the application side
> in one place rather than create synonyms in different databases.
>
And if you just standardize the naming in a different databases why
not use views ?

>
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:
>> pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Andy Colson
>> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 2:57 PM
>> To: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
>> Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Do we want SYNONYMS?
>>
>> On 12/6/2010 1:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> > Hey -general,
>> >
>> > Command Prompt is currently considering writing a patch to provide
>> > synonyms to PostgreSQL. Is this something the community is interested
>> > in? Do we have use cases for it? MSSQL, DB2 and Oracle support them.
>> >
>> > Reference thread:
>> >
>> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg02043.php
>> >
>> > Joshua D. Drake
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> And perusing the thread, I see it might cause all name and operator
>> lookups to be slower? (I didnt read all of it though)
>>
>> I'm gonna have to go: -1
>>
>> -Andy
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>>
>
>
>
> --
> // Dmitriy.
>
>
>

--
// Dmitriy.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael C Rosenstein 2010-12-06 21:27:05 Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?
Previous Message Dmitriy Igrishin 2010-12-06 21:21:07 Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?