| From: | "Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? |
| Date: | 2010-12-07 14:12:38 |
| Message-ID: | 08f923ad-c2c5-4861-a17d-11225c4b5467@mm |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Vick Khera wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> I must be missing something, but really, what's the point of synonyms?
> What's the real-world use case for them?
It's about decoupling the name from the actual object, much like what soft
links are for file systems.
It's convenient when you need to change the underlying object without
touching the application code.
Best regards,
--
Daniel
PostgreSQL-powered mail user agent and storage: http://www.manitou-mail.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael C Rosenstein | 2010-12-07 14:14:19 | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? |
| Previous Message | Reuven M. Lerner | 2010-12-07 13:51:24 | Hanging with pg_restore and large objects |