Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> I thought about this a bit more last night. It's certainly true that > >> a lot of "internal" functions have comments that don't suggest that > >> they're not meant to be used directly. What I think would be a good > >> plan for functions that underlie operators is that we move any useful > >> comments from pg_proc to pg_operator, and then install a comment in > >> pg_proc that says "implementation of operator +" (or whatever the > >> operator name is). > >> ... > >> If that sounds like a reasonable plan, I'm willing to have a go at it > >> after the commitfest closes. > > > Tom, any work on this? A TODO? > > I haven't done anything about this yet, but it's still on my to-do list. > Right now (or at least after I finish the patches I'm working on) would > probably be about the best possible time to do it, since hopefully we > have the minimum number of unapplied patches that would need to be > revised to follow the new convention.
Good point. -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
