| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SYNONYMs revisited |
| Date: | 2009-03-04 20:15:23 |
| Message-ID: | 5950.1236197723@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I didn't mean to suggest that SQL/MED on its own could be used to make
> SYNONYMs, but rather that given SQL/MED, perhaps we could reconsider
> some sort of CREATE SYNONYM functionality to go along with it. A major
> argument against CREATE SYNONYM in the past was that we wouldn't be able
> to create synonyms representing remote objects because we couldn't
> access remote objects. With SQL/MED that's no longer the case, so
> perhaps that argument no longer applies.
Well, we're still a long way from having SQL/MED ;-). In particular,
one of the elements of that spec is CREATE FOREIGN TABLE, which I think
basically *is* a synonym for a table on a remote server.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2009-03-04 20:17:20 | Is there an official log reader for PostgreSQL? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-03-04 19:29:43 | Re: SYNONYMs revisited |