From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: greenreaper@hotmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Naming of network_ops vs. inet_ops for SP-GIST
In-reply-to: <Y9CXwpxK/1j1a7vD@paquier.xyz>
References: 
 <167458110639.2667300.14741268666497110766@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <2314977.1674591764@sss.pgh.pa.us> <Y9CXwpxK/1j1a7vD@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Wed, 25 Jan 2023 11:45:22 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2581958.1674617908.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 22:38:28 -0500
Message-ID: <2581959.1674617908@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2581959.1674617908%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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