On 2026-Jun-10, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro_Herrera?= <alvherre@kurilemu.de> writes:
> > I think we should just ditch the idea that operators live in schemas.
>
> How would you do that without removing user-defined operators
> altogether? (And thereby breaking most extensions.)
My proposal would be that all operators, both system-defined as well as
user-defined, live in a single namespace -- not that we forbid them from
being created. I expect extensions mostly create operators for the data
types they themselves define, not for existing system datatypes.
I think the idea of public.=(int,int) being different from
pg_catalog.=(int,int) is just too dangerous and trips people up without
giving much valuable functionality. If the extension offers
=(complex,complex) then that's fine: we would still have overloading per
the type system.
I may be missing something though. Care to point out what it is?
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"El que vive para el futuro es un iluso, y el que vive para el pasado,
un imbécil" (Luis Adler, "Los tripulantes de la noche")
