Re: Compatibility types, type aliases, and distinct types - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Asko Oja
Subject Re: Compatibility types, type aliases, and distinct types
Date
Msg-id ecd779860808180550y7b137e9ax280c05275dc377c9@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Compatibility types, type aliases, and distinct types  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
In my experience synonyms as well as rules are hacks and should be avoided althou there are cases where they can save some work for dba's during transitions from one situation to better one.

> There is also another possible way one might want to create a compatibility
> type.  Instead of creating a new type, create an alias for an existing type,
> much like we currently have built-in mappings for int -> int4, bigint ->
> int8, etc.  The difference here is that the type you put in is not the same
> as the one you get dumped out.  So depending on taste and requirements, a
> user might want to choose the distinct type or the alias route.

Example or two would be helpful here where you expect this kind of functionality be useful. Could you use it for defining Oracle compatibel varchar2 and how would it work then?

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e@gmx.net) wrote:
> There is also another possible way one might want to create a compatibility
> type.  Instead of creating a new type, create an alias for an existing type,
> much like we currently have built-in mappings for int -> int4, bigint ->
> int8, etc.  The difference here is that the type you put in is not the same
> as the one you get dumped out.  So depending on taste and requirements, a
> user might want to choose the distinct type or the alias route.

The alias route gets me thinking about Oracle synonyms..  That'd be nice
to have in PG for a number of object types.  Most recently I was wishing
I could create a schema synonym, though being able to do tables/views
would have worked as well in that case, just a bit more work.

> What do you think about adding this kind of support to PostgreSQL?  Obviously,
> some details need to be worked out, but most of this is actually
> straightforward catalog manipulation.

I like the concept.  Not sure how much I'd end up using it, personally.

       Thanks,

               Stephen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkipbCgACgkQrzgMPqB3kiinmwCfROrhdu8YDpzsJvOtvpSW147O
SOQAn3y/4MGadFz9VqDsmcm8fiKuxsn5
=gdfU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Compatibility types, type aliases, and distinct types
Next
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Re: any psql static binary for iphone ?