Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I thought about this a bit more last night. It's certainly true that
> >> a lot of "internal" functions have comments that don't suggest that
> >> they're not meant to be used directly. What I think would be a good
> >> plan for functions that underlie operators is that we move any useful
> >> comments from pg_proc to pg_operator, and then install a comment in
> >> pg_proc that says "implementation of operator +" (or whatever the
> >> operator name is).
> >> ...
> >> If that sounds like a reasonable plan, I'm willing to have a go at it
> >> after the commitfest closes.
>
> > Tom, any work on this? A TODO?
>
> I haven't done anything about this yet, but it's still on my to-do list.
> Right now (or at least after I finish the patches I'm working on) would
> probably be about the best possible time to do it, since hopefully we
> have the minimum number of unapplied patches that would need to be
> revised to follow the new convention.
Good point.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
