Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> 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.
cheers
andrew
