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
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? |