Re: Operators and schemas - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Operators and schemas
Date
Msg-id 25349.1018896004@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Operators and schemas  (Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fernando Nasser
Date:
Subject: Re: Operators and schemas
Next
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: rules and default values