> On Aug 30, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Mark Dilger writes:
>> [ v3-0001-Adding-deprecation-notices.patch ]
>
> Pushed with some fiddling.
Thanks!
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Mark Dilger writes:
> [ v3-0001-Adding-deprecation-notices.patch ]
Pushed with some fiddling.
We previously found that adding id tags to constructs in the
function lists didn't work in PDF output [1]. Your patch did build
a PDF without warnings for me, which is odd --- apparently we changed
so
> On Aug 28, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Robert Haas writes:
>> So, in this version, there are six copies of the deprecation notice
>> John wrote, rather than just one. Maybe we need more than one, but I
>> doubt we need six. I don't think the CREATE OPERATOR documentation
>> needs t
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:56 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, I agree that there are way too many copies here. CREATE OPERATOR
> seems sufficient. It also seems like we should just rewrite the typeconv
> and drop_operator examples to use some other operator. We'll have
> to do that eventually anyway
Robert Haas writes:
> So, in this version, there are six copies of the deprecation notice
> John wrote, rather than just one. Maybe we need more than one, but I
> doubt we need six. I don't think the CREATE OPERATOR documentation
> needs to mention this both when first introducing the concept and
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 1:07 PM Mark Dilger
wrote:
> Yes, that is better. Attached.
So, in this version, there are six copies of the deprecation notice
John wrote, rather than just one. Maybe we need more than one, but I
doubt we need six. I don't think the CREATE OPERATOR documentation
needs to
Hi Mark,
-{ oid => '111',
+{ oid => '111', descr => 'factorial',
I see that opr_sanity fails without something here. We explicitly
don't have descriptions of functions that implement deprecated
operators (see setup_description() in initdb.c), but in all other
cases, there are also supported opera
> On Aug 27, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Mark Dilger writes:
>> The deprecation warnings included in this patch warn that postfix operator
>> support, along with both postfix ! and prefix !! factorial operators, will
>> be removed in PostgreSQL 14.
>
> The operator docs should say
Mark Dilger writes:
> The deprecation warnings included in this patch warn that postfix operator
> support, along with both postfix ! and prefix !! factorial operators, will be
> removed in PostgreSQL 14.
The operator docs should say "use factorial() instead", or words to
that effect.
