> Are you saying we should remove the whole chapter below from the docs? Actually, it may be simply that we (now) implement factorial operators for int8, int4, and int2. Not sure what previous releases implemented, but perhaps it is just an issue of knowing which one should be used for the operation. If before we only had, say, int4, then the coersion code could easily assume that it was the correct coersion. - Thomas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
- [HACKERS] factorial doc bug? Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] factorial doc bug? Gavin Sherry
- Re: [HACKERS] factorial doc bug? Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] factorial doc bug? Thomas Lockhart
- Re: [HACKERS] factorial doc bug? Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] factorial doc bug? Thomas Lockhart
- Re: [HACKERS] factorial doc bug? Thomas Lockhart
- Re: [HACKERS] factorial doc bug? Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] factorial doc bug? Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] factorial doc bug? Patrick Welche
- Re: [HACKERS] factorial doc bug? Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] factorial doc bug? Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] factorial doc bug? Tom Lane