Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?

From: Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?
Date: 2010-12-06 21:41:18
Message-ID: 4CFD587E.8090008@squeakycode.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 12/6/2010 3:30 PM, Michael C Rosenstein wrote:
> Here's a short overview of what Oracle synonyms provide:
> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28318/schema.htm#i5669
>
>
> /m
>

Hum... can we move away from what oracle supports? Cuz PG is not going
to support anything like it.

And can we get away from oracle parlance? Michael, can you tell us, in
PG terms, what you could have used. (err, just saw your "example
webAppUser" above... which I think pretty much covers that, so never mind)

Can someone post what the synonyms will do? And what will be synonym'able?

(cuz JD said: SYNONYMS work for things that aren't a table.
then tlg said: synonyms for non-table things was pretty much rejected.

so we got... nothing then?)

-Andy

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andy Colson 2010-12-06 21:43:29 Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-12-06 21:38:21 Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?