On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 02:39:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> 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!

David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com
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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to