Tom Lane wrote: > (Actually, I don't think the case for table synonyms has been made > adequately either; "Oracle has it" is *not* enough reason to take on > another feature that we'll have to maintain forever, especially given > that we're being told that one of the major use-cases for synonyms > isn't going to be supported. AFAICS this patch does nothing you > couldn't do much better with a quick search-and-replace over your > application code. In short, I remain unsold.)
What I don't really understand is what part of this cannot be achieved by changing the search_path. The only case I can think of is when you have tables A and B in schemas R and S, but you want to use R.A and S.B. So there's no way to change search_path for this. But is this really the intended use case? I wonder whether synonyms were introduced in Oracle because of that idea of theirs that each user has its own schema, and can access that schema only; so to use a table in another schema you need to create a synonym. We don't have that limitation so we don't need that usage either. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
