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 > <alvhe...@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 <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
