From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael C Rosenstein <mcr(at)mdibl(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? |
Date: | 2010-12-07 18:47:05 |
Message-ID: | 1291747625.31995.6.camel@jd-desktop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 09:14 -0500, Michael C Rosenstein wrote:
> I won't press the issue for Postgres any further, but I will attest that
> synonyms work quite elegantly in Oracle, provide valuable functionality,
> and do not generally sow confusion among skilled developers. It sounds
> like the proposed "synonym" feature for Postgres perhaps had a different
> intention than I assumed, however, especially due to the differences
> between the Oracle and PG viz. how "users," "schemas" and "databases" work.
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)
JD
>
> Thanks.
>
> /mcr
>
>
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dmitriy Igrishin | 2010-12-07 18:52:30 | Re: Tool for data modeling and ER diagram |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-12-07 18:45:02 | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? |