| From: | Michael C Rosenstein <mcr(at)mdibl(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? |
| Date: | 2010-12-07 14:14:19 |
| Message-ID: | 4CFE413B.2050907@mdibl.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
I won't press the issue for Postgres any further, but I will attest that
synonyms work quite elegantly in Oracle, provide valuable functionality,
and do not generally sow confusion among skilled developers. It sounds
like the proposed "synonym" feature for Postgres perhaps had a different
intention than I assumed, however, especially due to the differences
between the Oracle and PG viz. how "users," "schemas" and "databases" work.
Thanks.
/mcr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael C Rosenstein | 2010-12-07 14:28:27 | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? |
| Previous Message | Daniel Verite | 2010-12-07 14:12:38 | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? |