On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 01:49:41PM -0600, P Kishor wrote:
> > If aliases were defined for PostGres then why not for MySQL, Oracle,
^^^^^^^ ??
> > MSSQL, Firebird, VistaDB, SAP/DB, DB/2, and on and on.
> Good point.
Not so good. The proper question would be: "why _yes_"?
Can't understand this popular "contra" in the style: "if we would add this
feature, then why not a hundreds of others, if aliases for Postgres - then..."
see above.
There are many possibilities available, so there's just a need to make
conscious choice. Who said, that when aliases were defined for Postgres,
it means, that similar _must_(?) then be defined for "MySQL, Oracle, MSSQL,
Firebird, VistaDB, SAP/DB, DB/2, and on and on." as well?
If there were real benefits from implementing such aliases for Postgres,
would there be any point in avoiding this - just being scared, that "soon
we'll have do the same for MySQL etc."? There'll be no need (neither
compulsion) for this, if "aliases for MySQL, Firebird etc." won't mean any
gain. So, the answer for the question "why not" would be in such case:
"...because no profits there".
No, it's not voice neither "pro", nor "contra" of the proposal (didn't
write, that there are profits in Postgres' case), I read the concluding
response from dr. Hipp already, where is a _real_ argument "it can break
compatibility".
--
pozdrawiam / regards
Zbigniew Baniewski
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
