Re: Small doc tweak for array/string functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ian Barwick <ian(dot)barwick(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Small doc tweak for array/string functions
Date: 2018-12-26 21:55:14
Message-ID: 22404.1545861314@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ian Barwick <ian(dot)barwick(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On these pages:
> - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-array.html
> - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-string.html
> we point out via "See also" the existence of aggregate array and string
> functions, but I think it would be useful to also mention the existence
> of string-related array functions and array-related string (regexp) functions
> respectively.

Hmm. The existing cross-references there feel a bit ad-hoc to me already,
and the proposed additions even more so. Surely we don't want to conclude
that every function that takes or returns an array needs to be cited on
the functions-array page; and that idea would be even sillier if applied
to strings. How can we define a less spur-of-the-moment approach to
deciding what to list?

The patch as shown might be just fine, but I'd like to have some rationale
for which things we're listing or not listing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-12-26 22:02:37 Re: Move regression.diffs of pg_upgrade test suite
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2018-12-26 21:48:23 Re: random() (was Re: New GUC to sample log queries)