X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874BE14B27FC for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 21:21:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08790-10 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:21:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47BF14B27FB for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 21:20:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7A0KxDM022099; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 20:20:59 -0400 (EDT) To: David Fetter Cc: Peter Eisentraut , Jeff , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions In-reply-to: <20040809214010.GC3515@fetter.org> References: <6B84FBA0-EA28-11D8-A672-000D9366F0C4@torgo.978.org> <19661.1092083983@sss.pgh.pa.us> <200408092320.33165.peter_e@gmx.net> <20040809212737.GA3515@fetter.org> <20528.1092087296@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20040809214010.GC3515@fetter.org> Comments: In-reply-to David Fetter message dated "Mon, 09 Aug 2004 14:40:10 -0700" Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 20:20:59 -0400 Message-ID: <22098.1092097259@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200408/30 X-Sequence-Number: 2490 David Fetter writes: > I think Jeff's original point was that he wanted some kind of index > for all functions, not just ones you already know how to classify. I thought his point was that he didn't fully know how the docs have already classified functions, and therefore didn't know which page to look on to find a given one. This seems a legitimate gripe to me, and one that can be cured with a more complete index. regards, tom lane