Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 12:55:34 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, osdba <mailtch@163.com>,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes"  have a clerical
 error?
Message-ID: <20200822165534.GD26781@momjian.us>
References: <20200821231616.GK13363@momjian.us>
 <20200822031907.GA12615@alvherre.pgsql>
 <20200822122319.GA24782@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200822122319.GA24782@paquier.xyz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 09:23:19PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:19:07PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Now that we can point people to psql's \dAo, do we really need to have
> > these tables at all?
> 
> Having the tables is IMO still useful as a quick reference for users
> that don't have immediately psql at hand when working on an
> application, for example imagine somebody using pgAdmin.  And I would
> imagine that such people are not few.  Another risk here is somebody
> using psql with a server that has a major version different than the
> one they are working on, leading to false assumptions?  Having at
> least a mention to those psql shortcuts in the docs is still a good
> idea IMO, as said upthread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200804055651.GC2091@paquier.xyz

Yeah, I kind of like the table myself too, because this topic is already
so complicated.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com

  The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee