Tom Lane writes:
> I really don't see what's wrong with building a namespace mechanism
> that is orthogonal to ownership and then using that to implement what
> SQL92 wants. I think this will be cleaner, simpler, and more flexible
> than trying to equate ownership with namespace.
OK, I can accept that. But then I want to get back at my original point,
namely that all database objects (except users and groups) should be in
schemas. This is also cleaner, simpler, and more flexible. There is
clearly demand for schema-local functions. So I think that designing this
system from the premise that a schema-qualified operator call will look
strange is the wrong end to start at.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
