On 06/26/2014 03:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> On 06/25/2014 02:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Why do we have essentially duplicate pg_proc entries for json_extract_path
>>> and json_extract_path_op?
>>> Likewise for json_extract_path_text_op, jsonb_extract_path_op, and
>>> jsonb_extract_path_text_op.
>> ISTR trying that and running into problems, maybe with opr_sanity checks.
> Well, the reason that opr_sanity is complaining is that there's a
> violation of our general policy of documenting either the operator or
> the underlying function, not both. Using a separate pg_proc entry
> like this doesn't mean you didn't violate the policy; you just hid the
> violation from opr_sanity.
>
> Do we actually want to document these things as both operators and
> functions? If we do, then the right answer is to list them as known
> exceptions in the opr_sanity test, not to hide the fact that we're
> violating the general documentation policy.
It's quite important that we have the variadic functions exposed.
cheers
andrew
