Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 23:19:07 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, osdba <mailtch@163.com>,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes"  have a clerical
 error?
Message-ID: <20200822031907.GA12615@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200821231616.GK13363@momjian.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Aug-21, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> On Mon, Aug  3, 2020 at 04:49:04PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 03:14:56PM +0800, osdba wrote:
> > > "range_opsany range type&& &> &< >> << <@ -|- = @> @>"， exist double "@>"，
> > >  
> > > Should be "<@ @>" ?
> > 
> > Indeed, this needs to be improved.  Another issue on the same page is
> > that point_ops lists the same operator three times, <@.  Other index
> > pages don't seem to have any inconsistencies, fortunately.
> 
> I decided to remove the duplicates and just add "(multiple)" after
> operators that have multiple system table entries;  patch attached.

Now that we can point people to psql's \dAo, do we really need to have
these tables at all?


-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services