From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: greenreaper@hotmail.com
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Naming of network_ops vs. inet_ops for SP-GIST
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 22:38:28 -0500
Message-ID: <2581959.1674617908@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y9CXwpxK/1j1a7vD@paquier.xyz>
References: <167458110639.2667300.14741268666497110766@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
<2314977.1674591764@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<Y9CXwpxK/1j1a7vD@paquier.xyz>
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> I don't have a strong opinion about the naming inconsistency between
> the opclass name and the opfamily name in this case, though, couldn't
> it create more problems than actually fix something?
Well, it's been like that from day one and people haven't complained.
I think changing it now would add more confusion than it subtracts.
> Anyway, attached is a patch for the docs. Thoughts?
Works for me.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, michael@paquier.xyz, greenreaper@hotmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Naming of network_ops vs. inet_ops for SP-GIST
In-Reply-To: <2581959.1674617908@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox