Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:59:02 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, 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: <20200822185902.GA11024@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <2208818.1598117220@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Aug-22, Tom Lane wrote:

> If you don't want to go all the way and list the operators with their
> input types, maybe we should just do what the OP thought was correct
> and delete the duplicate operator names.  It's already the case that
> the table isn't telling you exactly which input types the operators
> accept, so why not be a little bit fuzzier?

Well, if we're going to have a table, let's have a useful table.  What's
wrong with using the same contents \dAo shows? It seemed reasonable
enough to me.

Now of course I would suggest that other client programs such as pgAdmin
ought to display what \dAo shows too ;-)

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