Re: Operators and schemas

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Operators and schemas
Date: 2002-04-15 18:40:04
Message-ID: 25349.1018896004@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> writes:
> If some types are really important and operators are desired, it can be
> coordinated with the DBA as operators would be a database wide resource.
> (This would be the case if indices extensions were involved anyway).

No, there isn't any particular reason that index extensions should be
considered database-wide resources; if operators are named local to
schemas, then opclasses can be too, and that's all you need.

In practice maybe it doesn't matter; I doubt anyone would try to
implement an indexable datatype in anything but C, and to define
C functions you must be superuser anyway. But this does not seem
to me to be a good argument why operator names should be global.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2002-04-15 18:42:54 Re: rules and default values
Previous Message Fernando Nasser 2002-04-15 18:28:20 Re: Operators and schemas