On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue dic 02 17:27:01 -0300 2010: >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> > Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of mié dic 01 17:13:35 -0300 2010: >> >> >> >> > Well, porting applications from other database systems that support >> >> > synonyms >> >> > (i.e. Oracle, DB2, SQL Server). >> >> >> >> SQL Server supports synonyms? If it's not Oracle-only, it's a more >> >> powerful argument to have the feature. >> > >> > I think it's worth mentioning that in SQL Server, synonyms are not >> > schema-qualified; they're "global" objects. >> >> Seems like they have more than one kind. >> >> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14200/statements_7001.htm > > Yeah, the Oracle system is a lot more complex than SQL Server's, but I > was only talking about the latter, for which see here: > > http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3635426/SYNONYM-in-SQL-Server-2005.htm
Well, that seems primarily designed to cut down on three and four part names. We don't have that problem anyway. >> The list of objects for which they support synonyms is also >> interesting. > > The bit that allows a synonym to reference another synonym seems like > worth considering further (either reject them altogether, or have some > way to deal with possible cycles). It's pretty trivial to do cycle-detection at runtime. > I think the original proposal in > this thread didn't mention them at all. > > (I don't think we should consider synonyms for either functions or > stored procedures; that would make the current mess of function > resolution rules a lot messier.) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
