Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Daniel Verite
Тема Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?
Дата
Msg-id bf997bf4-8044-45dc-9540-dd8cbbf44bf6@mm
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?  (Michael C Rosenstein <mcr@mdibl.org>)
Ответы Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?  (Michael C Rosenstein <mcr@mdibl.org>)
Список pgsql-general
    Michael C Rosenstein wrote:

> > What is "schema" in this context?
>
> Oracle "schema" == Postgres "database":  a collection of objects
> (tables, functions, triggers, views, etc) owned by a user.

That definition applies to an Oracle schema, but not to a postgres database.
Objects inside a postgres database are not confined to a unique owner. Even
objects inside the same postgres schema don't have that constraint.

Also the analogy fails in that in Oracle you can refer to schema.object
(which really means owner.object) whereas db.object doesn't work in postgres.

Best regards,
--
Daniel
PostgreSQL-powered mail user agent and storage: http://www.manitou-mail.org

В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Sairam Krishnamurthy
Дата:
Сообщение: COPY FROM and INSERT INTO rules
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?