Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([2a02:16a8:dc51::56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fxJKC-0006Xg-Q4 for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 21:57:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fxJKB-00080x-6p for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 21:57:27 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fxJKA-00080q-U6 for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 21:57:27 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fxJK8-0007nB-J0 for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 21:57:25 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w84LvN94003048; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 17:57:23 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Daniel Cory cc: "pgsql-docs@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Documentation for alternate names of functions In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Daniel Cory message dated "Tue, 04 Sep 2018 21:17:16 -0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3045.1536098243.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 17:57:23 -0400 Message-ID: <3047.1536098243@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Daniel Cory writes: > Can we document that "pow" is the same as "power"? Meh. power() is the SQL-standard spelling; I don't see a good reason to encourage people to use the legacy name. We might hope to get rid of that name someday (cf commit fc7fd5018). > Can we document "int4larger" and related functions? We intentionally do *not* document functions that are only meant to be used as infrastructure for operators and aggregates. If we did, the tables would be far larger and would just encourage people to use functions we'd prefer they didn't. As with the pow() case, this'd basically be enlarging our exposed surface of frozen API, and I don't think that's desirable. regards, tom lane