Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Even if they don't all have precisely the same semantics, though, is
> there an objection in principle to providing synonyms?
The point I was trying to bring out is that they aren't standard,
which amounts to an objection in principle. I'd at least like to see
some effort made to demonstrate that we are adopting semantics that
match a majority of other DBs, rather than inventing something in a
vacuum which is what appears to be happening in this thread.
regards, tom lane