On 18.01.24 22:21, David G. Johnston wrote:
> I started looking at this specific item and immediately got the idea to
> actually document in user-facing (i.e., not system catalogs) what these
> object categories are in which object types share the schema namespace.
> The "Other Object Types" section already in the DDL chapter seems to
> provide a near-perfect place to put this (not sure I like the word
> "other" there being my only complaint). The attached patch replaces
> Laurenz's v1, leaving the create_table changes as-is but presenting an
> alternative approach to introducing namespacing when we explain why
> schemas exist.
I think this proposal goes a bit too far into implementation-dependent
details. The namespace of tables and indexes is clearly important, but
for example, the subdivision of types into range types and multi-range
types is really low-level and not usually practically relevant. And you
don't mention array types, probably because they are not mentioned in
typtype, but they are also relevant for the namespace of types. There
are multiple ways to slice all this, but it's not clear why we need to
lay this all out in the introductory documentation.