| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for SYNONYMS |
| Date: | 2006-03-10 21:51:35 |
| Message-ID: | 21389.1142027495@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> writes:
> One key difference would be that synonyms track schema updates, like
> adding a column, to the referenced object that a view would not.
That raises a fairly interesting point, actually. What would you expect
to happen here:
CREATE TABLE foo ...;
CREATE SYNONYM bar FOR foo;
CREATE VIEW v AS SELECT * FROM bar;
DROP SYNONYM bar;
With the implementations being proposed, v would effectively be stored
as "SELECT * FROM foo" and thus would be unaffected by the DROP SYNONYM.
Is that what people will expect? Is it what happens in Oracle?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-10 23:20:59 | Re: problem with large maintenance_work_mem settings and |
| Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-03-10 21:26:52 | Re: random observations while testing with a 1,8B row |