Re: Do we want SYNONYMS? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Daniel Verite
Subject Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?
Date
Msg-id bf997bf4-8044-45dc-9540-dd8cbbf44bf6@mm
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?  (Michael C Rosenstein <mcr@mdibl.org>)
Responses Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?  (Michael C Rosenstein <mcr@mdibl.org>)
List pgsql-general
    Michael C Rosenstein wrote:

> > What is "schema" in this context?
>
> Oracle "schema" == Postgres "database":  a collection of objects
> (tables, functions, triggers, views, etc) owned by a user.

That definition applies to an Oracle schema, but not to a postgres database.
Objects inside a postgres database are not confined to a unique owner. Even
objects inside the same postgres schema don't have that constraint.

Also the analogy fails in that in Oracle you can refer to schema.object
(which really means owner.object) whereas db.object doesn't work in postgres.

Best regards,
--
Daniel
PostgreSQL-powered mail user agent and storage: http://www.manitou-mail.org

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Sairam Krishnamurthy
Date:
Subject: COPY FROM and INSERT INTO rules
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?