| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Deprecating postfix and factorial operators in PostgreSQL 13 |
| Date: | 2020-08-28 16:43:16 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoat79szOi62UtCuMjzPHAwV9a4YqYKg10P-faK8nSffpQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:56 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 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, so why not now, instead of visiting those
> places twice?
Hmm, that's an idea. I think it would be reasonable to rewrite the
typeconv.sgml one, but the one in drop_operator.sgml seems like it
could just be dropped. Its only purpose seems to be to demonstrate how
to drop a right-unary operator vs. a left-unary operator, but I
venture to guess that anyone smart enough to make any sort of
effective use of DROP OPERATOR could probably draw the necessary
inferences anyway.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-08-28 16:54:42 | Re: Clang UndefinedBehaviorSanitize (Postgres14) Detected undefined-behavior |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-08-28 16:37:17 | Re: Allow ERROR from heap_prepare_freeze_tuple to be downgraded to WARNING |