On 06/26/2014 03:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
On 06/25/2014 02:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Why do we have essentially duplicate pg_proc entries for json_extract_path
and json_extract_path_op?
Likewise for json_extract_path_text_op, jsonb_extract_path_op, and
jsonb_extract_path_text_op.
ISTR trying that and running into problems, maybe with opr_sanity checks.
Well, the reason that opr_sanity is complaining is that there's a
violation of our general policy of documenting either the operator or
the underlying function, not both.  Using a separate pg_proc entry
like this doesn't mean you didn't violate the policy; you just hid the
violation from opr_sanity.

Do we actually want to document these things as both operators and
functions?  If we do, then the right answer is to list them as known
exceptions in the opr_sanity test, not to hide the fact that we're
violating the general documentation policy.


It's quite important that we have the variadic functions exposed.

cheers

andrew


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to