On 2026-Jun-10, Tom Lane wrote: > =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro_Herrera?= <[email protected]> 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")
