In my experience synonyms as well as rules are hacks and should be avoided althou there are cases where they can save some work for dba's during transitions from one situation to better one.
> There is also another possible way one might want to create a compatibility
> type. Instead of creating a new type, create an alias for an existing type,
> much like we currently have built-in mappings for int -> int4, bigint ->
> int8, etc. The difference here is that the type you put in is not the same
> as the one you get dumped out. So depending on taste and requirements, a
> user might want to choose the distinct type or the alias route.
Example or two would be helpful here where you expect this kind of functionality be useful. Could you use it for defining Oracle compatibel varchar2 and how would it work then?
> There is also another possible way one might want to create a compatibility
> type. Instead of creating a new type, create an alias for an existing type,
> much like we currently have built-in mappings for int -> int4, bigint ->
> int8, etc. The difference here is that the type you put in is not the same
> as the one you get dumped out. So depending on taste and requirements, a
> user might want to choose the distinct type or the alias route.
Example or two would be helpful here where you expect this kind of functionality be useful. Could you use it for defining Oracle compatibel varchar2 and how would it work then?
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e@gmx.net) wrote:The alias route gets me thinking about Oracle synonyms.. That'd be nice
> There is also another possible way one might want to create a compatibility
> type. Instead of creating a new type, create an alias for an existing type,
> much like we currently have built-in mappings for int -> int4, bigint ->
> int8, etc. The difference here is that the type you put in is not the same
> as the one you get dumped out. So depending on taste and requirements, a
> user might want to choose the distinct type or the alias route.
to have in PG for a number of object types. Most recently I was wishing
I could create a schema synonym, though being able to do tables/views
would have worked as well in that case, just a bit more work.
I like the concept. Not sure how much I'd end up using it, personally.
> What do you think about adding this kind of support to PostgreSQL? Obviously,
> some details need to be worked out, but most of this is actually
> straightforward catalog manipulation.
Thanks,
Stephen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkipbCgACgkQrzgMPqB3kiinmwCfROrhdu8YDpzsJvOtvpSW147O
SOQAn3y/4MGadFz9VqDsmcm8fiKuxsn5
=gdfU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
No comments:
Post a Comment