From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | What object types should be in schemas? |
Date: | 2023-01-11 15:32:57 |
Message-ID: | 422c5d78-839f-8232-cd16-a887979ef901@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The current hierarchy of object types is like this:
database
access method
event trigger
extension
foreign data wrapper
foreign server
language
publication
schema
aggregate
collation
conversion
domain
function/procedure
index
operator
operator class
operator family
sequence
statistics
table/view
policy
rule
trigger
text search configuration
text search dictionary
text search parser
text search template
type
subscription
role
tablespace
special:
- cast
- transform
- user mapping
How does one decide whether something should be in a schema or not? The
current state feels intuitively correct, but I can't determine any firm
way to decide.
Over in the column encryption thread, the patch proposes to add various
key types as new object types. For simplicity, I just stuck them
directly under database, but I don't know whether that is correct.
Thoughts?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2023-01-11 15:47:54 | Re: doc: mentioned CREATE+ATTACH PARTITION as an alternative to CREATE TABLE..PARTITION OF |
Previous Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2023-01-11 15:23:34 | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |