Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Ortel <[email protected]> writes:
One of the items that resurfaced is synonyms. The original plan was
to do away with the synonyms because postgres does not support them.
I've removed references to the synonyms in the schema (insert files)
but the monitoring code seems to depend heavily on them. So, do leave
the synonyms in the schema as oracle specific (the monitoring code
will be broken for postgres) or do we replace references to the
synonyms in the monitoring code for 0.6? Can someone comment on the
LOE for this?
Perhaps we could use views as a PG substitute for synonyms? I agree
with the idea of getting rid of them over the long term, but it would be
nice to not have that in the critical path if there is a lot of code
that would have to change.
Perhaps. My concern about using views even as an interim solution is that the monitoring
code has high insert/update demands (I'm assuming) and we'd have to use 'on insert/update'
rules to make the views seem mutable, right? Wouldn't this degrade performance? I
sniffed the code a little and found that there is a mixture of references to the table
names and synonyms. I found about 83 references to the table names and I'm not sure about
the synonyms since they don't have an easy pattern like 'rhn_' to grep on like the
synonyms. But, it makes me hopeful that the number of references to synonyms is
relatively small. Thanks for the suggestion. It's good to have this as an option.
regards, tom lane
_______________________________________________
Spacewalk-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
_______________________________________________
Spacewalk-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
