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
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 |