| From: | Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: popcount |
| Date: | 2021-01-19 16:41:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsGm5dKEDVJRN1qw=mz_mQPKR7=n9H5bVif--doWmePnVQ51Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 11:38, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> You bring up an excellent point, which is that our builtin functions
> could use a lot more documentation directly to hand than they now
> have. For example, there's a lot of needless ambiguity created by
> function comments which leave it up in the air as to which positional
> argument does what in functions like string_to_array, which take
> multiple arguments. I'll try to get a patch in for the next CF with a
> fix for that, and a separate one that doesn't put it on people to use
> \df+ to find the comments we do provide. There have been proposals for
> including an optional space for COMMENT ON in DDL, but I suspect that
> those won't fly unless and until they make their way into the
> standard.
>
Since you mention \df+, I wonder if this is the time to consider removing
the source code from \df+ (since we have \sf) and adding in the proacl
instead?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-01-19 16:43:15 | Re: pg_class.reltype -> pg_type.oid missing for pg_toast table |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2021-01-19 16:38:19 | Re: popcount |