Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?

Hello

2010/12/7 Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
> On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 09:14 -0500, Michael C Rosenstein wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Your perception has been mirrored on the Oracle free list. Really what
> PostgreSQL people need to come to grips with is whether or not we want
> to make it easier for others to port to Pg or not. (assuming
> reasonableness)
>

it's question if this is task more for EnterpriseDB and less for PostgreSQL?

Pavel

>
>
> JD
>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> /mcr
>>
>>
>
> --
> PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
> Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
> Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
> http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>