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@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
