Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86A371337BD4
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  3 Mar 2011 02:53:18 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 54326-09 for
	<pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  3 Mar 2011 06:53:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FBF51337B68
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 02:53:10 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p236r5On027747;
	Thu, 3 Mar 2011 01:53:05 -0500 (EST)
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends 
In-reply-to: <10715.1298828414@sss.pgh.pa.us> 
References: <201102271727.p1RHR7a04699@momjian.us>
	<10715.1298828414@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:40:14 -0500"
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 01:53:05 -0500
Message-ID: <27746.1299135185@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201103/6
X-Sequence-Number: 6439

I wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I thought about this a bit more last night.  It's certainly true that
>>> a lot of "internal" functions have comments that don't suggest that
>>> they're not meant to be used directly.  What I think would be a good
>>> plan for functions that underlie operators is that we move any useful
>>> comments from pg_proc to pg_operator, and then install a comment in
>>> pg_proc that says "implementation of operator +" (or whatever the
>>> operator name is).
>>> ...
>>> If that sounds like a reasonable plan, I'm willing to have a go at it
>>> after the commitfest closes.

>> Tom, any work on this?  A TODO?

> I haven't done anything about this yet, but it's still on my to-do list.

Done now.

			regards, tom lane