On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 02:39:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > The history here is that originally I was intending to have these
> > functions documented, and so the descriptions were made to match the
> > operator descriptions, so that we didn't get a failure on this test.
> > Later we decided not to document them as part of last release's
> > bike-shedding, but the function descriptions didn't get changed / removed.
>
> Ah. I suppose there's no way to cross-check the state of the function's
> pg_description comment against whether it has SGML documentation :-(
FDWs to the rescue!
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
