| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, "L(dot) pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix unqualified catalog references in psql describe queries |
| Date: | 2026-07-08 00:04:48 |
| Message-ID: | 36a1871d7ba625197c023ceb5118045786c6fe5f.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2026-06-15 at 23:21 +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> I am imagining that only database owners would be able to create
> operators. There isn't any case for allowing that for anybody else,
> ISTM. How much need is there for "less-trusted" operators, really?
That's probably true in almost all cases. Operators are generally
defined as part of an extension that offers interesting types and
opclasses, and these are C extensions anyway. I haven't ever seen
someone define a convenience operator like they might define a
convenience function.
Perhaps some use it for some clever hacks around unmodifiable
application code or something?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2026-07-08 00:18:18 | Re: SPLIT/MERGE use of is_internal=true |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-07-07 23:59:35 | Re: BF mamba failure |