Re: Operator class group proposal

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Operator class group proposal
Date: 2006-12-15 23:44:10
Message-ID: 22644.1166226250@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Operator Superclass ?

Yeah, I thought about that too, but I don't like it much ... can't
entirely put my finger on why not, except that class/superclass usually
implies that the objects you're talking about are all the same kind of
thing, whereas what we have here is a very definite distinction between
two kinds of objects. On the same grounds, I'd object to calling
schemas "directories" or "folders", unless they could be nested.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2006-12-15 23:57:22 Re: Operator class group proposal
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2006-12-15 23:23:15 Re: Operator class group proposal