From: | elein <elein(at)varlena(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposal for SYNONYMS |
Date: | 2006-03-09 22:26:30 |
Message-ID: | 20060309222630.GP15165@varlena.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 04:42:43PM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 3/9/06, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 1) Is there a SQL standard for this?
>
>
> Nope.
>
>
> 2) For my comprehension, what's the difference between a SYNONYM and a
> single-object (possibly updatable) view?
>
>
> Not a whole lot actually. If we had updateable views, I'd suggest that people
> change their create synonym syntax to create view. However, it would take
> substantially more work to implement updatable views than synonyms and the
> functionality of updatable views is substantially different than the use of
> synonyms alone. If/when updatable views are implemented, I wouldn't have a
> problem switching create synonym to actually create a view.
Since updateable views are relatively easy to construct using rules
I'm not sure an entire new syntax is necessary.
--elein
elein(at)varlena(dot)com
>
> --
> Jonah H. Harris, Database Internals Architect
> EnterpriseDB Corporation
> 732.331.1324
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-03-09 22:31:48 | Re: Proposal for SYNONYMS |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-09 22:23:11 | Re: Proposal for SYNONYMS |