| From: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Operators and schemas |
| Date: | 2002-04-15 18:28:20 |
| Message-ID: | 3CBB1BC4.2B9CC8B6@redhat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> 1. Keep operators as database-wide objects, instead of putting them into
> namespaces. This seems a bit silly though: if the types and functions
> that underlie an operator are private to a namespace, shouldn't the
> operator be as well?
>
Not necessarily. One can still create a type and functions to operate
on them. Operators are a convenience, not a necessity (except for
indices extensions).
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).
I would keep operators database-wide.
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-15 18:40:04 | Re: Operators and schemas |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-15 18:25:28 | Re: rules and default values |