Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?

From: Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Michael C Rosenstein <mcr(at)mdibl(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?
Date: 2010-12-07 19:53:25
Message-ID: AANLkTinZR4D0ZFuGdCvGni=A0g-xN=kODW6s+O2ShGz=@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:

> Hello
>
> 2010/12/7 Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
> > 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?
>
>
FWIW, EnterpriseDB Advanced Server has had the SYNONYM feature for quite a
while now: http://www.enterprisedb.com/documentation/ddl-synonims.html

Regards,
--
gurjeet.singh
@ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
http://www.EnterpriseDB.com

singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet

Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Reuven M. Lerner 2010-12-07 20:56:17 Re: Hanging with pg_restore and large objects
Previous Message Chris Browne 2010-12-07 19:40:54 Re: Tool for data modeling and ER diagram