On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote: > On ons, 2010-10-13 at 23:25 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: >> Would anyone favor instead back-patching the documentation for the >> 8.3, 8.2, and 8.1 branches to include mentions of these >> previously-undocumented functions, instead? In >> <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2004-08/msg00015.php>, Tom >> opined that they should be left undocumented, but I really don't agree >> with that. > > The sets of intentionally documented and undocumented functions is part > of the API specification of a release, and we're not changing that after > the release, especially not when a future release ends up reverting the > change.
I find the idea of things being intentionally undocumented quite difficult. How is someone coming along supposed to know which things are intentionally undocumented and which things are unintentionally undocumented? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
