On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Adam Brightwell <adam.brightw...@crunchydatasolutions.com> wrote: > Robert, > >> To articular my own concerns perhaps a bit better, there are two major >> things I don't like about the whole DIRALIAS proposal. Number one, >> you're creating this SQL object whose name is not actually used for >> anything other than manipulating the alias you created. The users are >> still operating on pathnames. That's awfully strange. > > That's an interesting point and I don't disagree that it seems a little > strange. However, isn't this approach similar if not the same (other than > operating on path names) as with some other objects, specifically rules and > policies?
Hmm. Maybe. Somehow it feels different to me. A rule or policy is something internal to the system, and you have to identify it somehow. A directory, though, already has a name, so giving it an additional dummy name seems strange. But, you do have a point. -- 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
