Re: Fix unqualified catalog references in psql describe queries

On 2026-Jun-10, Tom Lane wrote:

> =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro_Herrera?= <alvherre@kurilemu.de> 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")