To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends 
In-reply-to: <201102271727.p1RHR7a04699@momjian.us> 
References: <201102271727.p1RHR7a04699@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:27:07 -0500"
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:40:14 -0500
Message-ID: <10715.1298828414@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

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.

			regards, tom lane