On 3/8/06, Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. The points raised about the difficulties of
managing large numbers of schemas are legitimate, but I don't see that
synonyms are a very effective solution. If we're going to make it less
painful to work on applications with many tens of schemas, that's a
worthwhile project, but I think we should take a fresh look at the
problem rather than just blindly copying a construct from Oracle.

I agree wholeheartedly.

As for the idea that because we're not supporting database links (which synonyms are used for a lot) we shouldn't support synonyms, now that we have 2PC, it's now possible to reimplement the dblink contrib module into something which supported nicer database linking.  Don't get me wrong, it certainly would be a task, but it's doable and I know a number of people who use the dblink contrib module on a daily basis for data copying and remote querying.

I don't know anyone that really likes typing:

SELECT dblink('host=somehost dbname=remotedb ...', 'SELECT emp_id,first_name,last_name,middle_name,birth_dt,ssn,... FROM EMPLOYEE WHERE last_name = ''Blow''') AS t1(emp_id BIGINT, first_name VARCHAR, last_name VARCHAR, middle_name VARCHAR, birth_dt DATE, ssn NUMERIC, ...)

instead of:


If that's not bad enough, just try to do a lot of dynamic work using database links using the contrib module... it's not easy or efficient having to create types, functions, views, and rules to do dynamic work.

This is another discussion in and of itself, but I don't think supporting nicer database links is a discussion that's too far off either.  I'm glad we have the contrib module, but there's a lot of nicer things we could do there as well.  Not because it's an Oracle thing, but because it's great functionality to have.

Jonah H. Harris, Database Internals Architect
EnterpriseDB Corporation

Reply via email to