Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue dic 02 21:10:48 -0300 2010:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue dic 02 17:27:01 -0300 2010:
> > 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.
Right. (My point here is that SQL Server is not a good guidance on what
the synonym system should do.)
> >> 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.
No disagreement on that, but something needs to be decided.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support