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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
