On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 02:39:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]> writes: > > The history here is that originally I was intending to have these > > functions documented, and so the descriptions were made to match the > > operator descriptions, so that we didn't get a failure on this test. > > Later we decided not to document them as part of last release's > > bike-shedding, but the function descriptions didn't get changed / removed. > > Ah. I suppose there's no way to cross-check the state of the function's > pg_description comment against whether it has SGML documentation :-(
FDWs to the rescue! Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[email protected]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [email protected] iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
