Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?
От | Alexey Klyukin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19E6350A-FC98-4CF9-AE41-62C21331ABC2@commandprompt.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? (Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Dec 13, 2010, at 12:03 PM, Jasen Betts wrote: > On 2010-12-07, Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net> wrote: > >> I think it covers parts. In both you can create an alias to a table, >> both of which you can fire off insert/update/delete. I assume in PG you >> could have different permissions for the table and the alias, which I >> assume you can do in oracle. >> >> If we pretend oracle and PG both have the same thing as a schema, and >> using PG's definition of schema: >> >> I assume in oracle you can "create table synonym schemaA.bob for >> schemaB.tablex" >> >> And I assume you could do the same in PG. >> >> However beyond that, I dont know what oracle supports that we'd need. > > They want synonyms for functions, but as far as I can see the same can be > achieved with minimal extra work by creating a new LANGUAGE SQL function > that calls the original. > > CREATE FUNCTION newschema.newname( atype ... ) RETURNS rtype > AS ' select oldschema.oldname ( $1 ... ) ' LANGUAGE SQL; > > with apropriare values for the lowercase bits and elipsis. This could possibly lead to performance issues , and there would be no error or warning message if you occasionally drop the oldschema.oldname, rendering the newschema.newname useless. /A -- Alexey Klyukin http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: