Way back in this thread[1] one of the arguments against allowing
some version of CREATE SYNONYM was that we couldn't create a synonym for
an object in a remote database. Will the SQL/MED work make this sort of
thing a possibility? I realize since it's not standard anyway, there's
still a
Joshua Tolley wrote:
Way back in this thread[1] one of the arguments against allowing
some version of CREATE SYNONYM was that we couldn't create a synonym for
an object in a remote database. Will the SQL/MED work make this sort of
thing a possibility? I realize since it's not standard anyway,
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:14:41AM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
SQL/MED does support foreign tables, which are basically synonyms for
remote tables. Other than that, it has no real similarity to synonym
behavior for other database objects such as views, functions, or local
Joshua Tolley eggyk...@gmail.com writes:
I didn't mean to suggest that SQL/MED on its own could be used to make
SYNONYMs, but rather that given SQL/MED, perhaps we could reconsider
some sort of CREATE SYNONYM functionality to go along with it. A major
argument against CREATE SYNONYM in the
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 16:34:54 Joshua Tolley wrote:
Way back in this thread[1] one of the arguments against allowing
some version of CREATE SYNONYM was that we couldn't create a synonym for
an object in a remote database. Will the SQL/MED work make this sort of
thing a possibility?
The
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:15:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua Tolley eggyk...@gmail.com writes:
I didn't mean to suggest that SQL/MED on its own could be used to make
SYNONYMs, but rather that given SQL/MED, perhaps we could reconsider
some sort of CREATE SYNONYM functionality to go
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Joshua Tolley eggyk...@gmail.com wrote:
Way back in this thread[1] one of the arguments against allowing
some version of CREATE SYNONYM was that we couldn't create a synonym for
an object in a remote database. Will the SQL/MED work make this sort of
thing a
