I wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> We're trying to represent the pg_amproc entry here, and including a
>> bunch of details of the pg_proc entry to which it happens to point
>> seems almost better to be confusing the issue.
> Yeah, that occurred to me too. However, the CREATE OPERATOR CLASS
> syntax doesn't really draw a distinction between the referenced
> function/operator and its reference in the opclass, and I'm not sure
> users do either. So I don't want to give up the details of the function
> or operator. But sticking them at the end after a colon might make it
> clearer that the func/operator is referenced by the amproc or amop
> entry, but is not the same thing.
And yet ... and yet ... if you adopt the position that what we're going
to print is "amproc item: referenced procedure", then it's not entirely
clear why the amproc item description shouldn't be complete. The
argument that it's redundant with the procedure description gets a lot
weaker as soon as you look at them as two separate items. Ditto amop.
And having to add a lot of otherwise-useless code to suppress the
redundancy surely isn't very attractive.
So I guess I'm coming around to the idea that we want something not too
much bigger than Andreas' original patch, but applying to both amop and
amproc, and putting the operator/function description at the end.
Comments?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
