Tom Lane wrote:

Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Even if they don't all have precisely the same semantics, though, is there an objection in principle to providing synonyms?

The point I was trying to bring out is that they aren't standard,
which amounts to an objection in principle.  I'd at least like to see
some effort made to demonstrate that we are adopting semantics that
match a majority of other DBs, rather than inventing something in a
vacuum which is what appears to be happening in this thread.

I agree.

Maybe one of the proponents could put together a comparison matrix of how this is done in each of the databases previously mentioned.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to