Re: Small doc tweak for array/string functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Small doc tweak for array/string functions
Date
Msg-id 22404.1545861314@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Small doc tweak for array/string functions  (Ian Barwick <ian.barwick@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Ian Barwick <ian.barwick@2ndquadrant.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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: random() (was Re: New GUC to sample log queries)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Move regression.diffs of pg_upgrade test suite