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
> <alvherre@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
> 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). 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.)
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support