Feedback-ID: i131946ab:Fastmail
Message-ID: <422c5d78-839f-8232-cd16-a887979ef901@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 16:32:57 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1
Content-Language: en-US
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: What object types should be in schemas?
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/422c5d78-839f-8232-cd16-a887979ef901%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk

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?