Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwY+T1XTnwK=F-TED7QTD5Hb6b4r5JzFbsQ4gCCr-fEbbQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?  (osdba <mailtch@163.com>)
Responses Re:Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?  (osdba <mailtch@163.com>)
Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 8:17 PM osdba <mailtch@163.com> wrote:
hi all:

In Document "Table 59-1. Built-in GiST Operator Classes":

"range_ops any range type && &> &< >> << <@ -|- = @> @>", exist double "@>",
 
Should be "<@>" ?


It helps to reference the current version of the page (or provide a url link) as that section seems to have migrated to Chapter 64 - though it is unchanged even on the main development branch.

The table itself is extremely difficult to read: it would be more easily readable if the font was monospaced, but its not.

I'm reasonably confident that the equal sign is part of the second-to-last operator while the lone @> is the final operator.  Mostly I say this because GiST doesn't do straight equality so a lone equal operator isn't valid.

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mark Dilger
Date:
Subject: Re: new heapcheck contrib module
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: new heapcheck contrib module