| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |