From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
        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?
In-reply-to: <20200822165534.GD26781@momjian.us>
References: <20200821231616.GK13363@momjian.us>
 <20200822031907.GA12615@alvherre.pgsql> <20200822122319.GA24782@paquier.xyz>
 <20200822165534.GD26781@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Sat, 22 Aug 2020 12:55:34 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2208817.1598117220.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 13:27:00 -0400
Message-ID: <2208818.1598117220@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Yeah, I kind of like the table myself too, because this topic is already
> so complicated.

Agreed.  I'm not very happy with the suggestion of "(multiple)" though;
I think that will just add confusion.

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?

			regards, tom lane