Re: Precedence of %

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Precedence of %
Date: 2005-06-04 16:23:27
Message-ID: 2169.1117902207@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> writes:
> On Jun 5, 2005, at 12:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now that I look, it doesn't look like these operators are documented
>> at all in the SGML docs, so it sure seems that removing them should be
>> pretty painless.

> I wonder what else is lurking around undocumented and unused?

AFAIK, no one has ever gone through pg_proc and pg_operator
systematically to determine that every entry is either (a) documented
or (b) undocumented for definable reasons. We generally don't document
functions separately if they are accessible by a well-used operator;
for instance you're supposed to write "2+2" not "int4pl(2,2)". And
stuff that's supposed to be used only internally by the system, such
as index access method support functions, doesn't need to be listed.
But I wouldn't be at all surprised if some entries have just fallen
through the cracks. Anyone want to take on this bit of legwork?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-06-04 16:52:55 Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-06-04 16:13:55 Re: Do we force dependency?