Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?

From: "Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?
Date: 2010-12-07 01:10:20
Message-ID: bf997bf4-8044-45dc-9540-dd8cbbf44bf6@mm
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Michael C Rosenstein wrote:

> > What is "schema" in this context?
>
> Oracle "schema" == Postgres "database": a collection of objects
> (tables, functions, triggers, views, etc) owned by a user.

That definition applies to an Oracle schema, but not to a postgres database.
Objects inside a postgres database are not confined to a unique owner. Even
objects inside the same postgres schema don't have that constraint.

Also the analogy fails in that in Oracle you can refer to schema.object
(which really means owner.object) whereas db.object doesn't work in postgres.

Best regards,
--
Daniel
PostgreSQL-powered mail user agent and storage: http://www.manitou-mail.org

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-12-07 01:44:59 Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?
Previous Message Sairam Krishnamurthy 2010-12-07 00:27:11 COPY FROM and INSERT INTO rules